DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Claims 17 and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 newly recites “wherein the processor is further configured to… produce the dental restoration from a blank material” (line 34-43) lacks support from the original disclosure, and therefore is considered to be new matter. Note that while the original disclosure mentions producing and/or manufacturing a dental restoration for the disclosed system/method to automatically apply the colors thereto; however, there is no support for “the processor configured to produce the dental restoration from a blank material”.
The dependent claims are rejected herein based on their dependency of the base claim(s) rejected herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
4. 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.
5. Claims 17 and 23-30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites “A device comprising a computing unit, and a processor configured to” (lines 1-2). It is unclear how is the computing unit related to the processor and the rest of the elements in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “the dental restoration” (in line 4, and in line 18), which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
wherein calculating the multicolor target coloration comprises (a)
providing comparative data, performing a comparison of the comparative data
with the color characteristic and performing a transfer in which the target
coloration is generated from the data of the color characteristic and / or (b)
determining color gradients that are generated from the color characteristic
and generating a target color characteristic using the color gradients, the
comparative data being obtained from tooth measurement data and target
colorations of previous dental restorations and/or
data obtained in laboratory experiments,
For reference, claim 17 (lines 25-33) is produced herein:
In line 28, claim 17 recites “the data of the color characteristic” (line 28), which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Note that claim 17 defines antecedent basis for “generate a color characteristic” (line 13); there is no previously defined “data of the color characteristic”.
In line 31, claim 17 recites “tooth measurement data” which is lacking a referential article; it is unclear whether this is the same or different from the previously recited provide tooth measurement data” in line 2.
Claim 17 recites “the target coloration is generated” (lines 27-28); it is unclear whether this is the same or different from the previous step “calculate a multicolor target coloration” (line 15). It is unclear whether the limitations “the target coloration” and “a multicolor target coloration” refer to the same or different element(s)?
Claim 17 recites “generating a target color characteristic” (line 30); it is unclear whether this is the same or different from the previous step “generate a color characteristic” (line 13). It is unclear whether the limitations “a target color characteristic” and “a color characteristic” refer to the same or different element(s).
Claim 17 recites:
“determining color gradients that are generated from the color characteristic and generating a target color characteristic using the color gradients” (lines 29-30); and
“wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the color gradients from the color characteristic, wherein interpolation means are used to calculate the color gradients” (lines 34-35).
It is unclear whether these are the same or different steps.
Claim 17, lines 34-43 recites
“wherein the processor is further configured to:
calculate the color gradients from the color characteristic, wherein interpolation means are used to calculate the color gradients, and/or
wherein the algorithm comprises an artificial intelligence which is
designed to independently learn on the basis of a test data set to adapt
color distributions to reconstructions for evaluating a color situation of
the tooth measurement data and therefrom for calculating the color characteristic;
produce the dental restoration from a blank material; and
apply the target coloration to the dental restoration.
The limitation “the algorithm” (in line 37) lacks antecedent basis.
The recitation “calculate the color gradients…, and/or wherein the algorithm… evaluating a color situation… for calculating the color characteristic” (lines 35-41) appears to recite two essentially different steps “calculate the color gradients” and “calculating the color characteristic” as alternatives (i.e. “or” in “and/or”), which would negate (i.e. make optional) one of said steps previously recited as a positively claimed step.
Claim 17 recites “the processor is further configured to… produce the dental restoration from a blank material” (line 34-43). The limitation “the dental restoration” therein lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the limitation “a blank material” therein is the same, different from, or part of the previously recited “at least a blank material” (claim 17 line 6).
Claim 23 recites “the insertion area” (line 4) and “the target coloration” (line 5) which lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim(s). Note that claim 17 recites “at least one insertion area” (claim 17 line 4) and “a multicolor target coloration” (claim 17 line 15).
Claim 29 recites “the multicolor target coloration” (line 2) and “the target coloration” (line 4); it is unclear whether these are the same or different element(s).
The dependent claims are rejected herein based on their dependency on the base claims rejected herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 17 and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schomann (2004/0067465) in view of Krolikowski et al. (2019/0125503).
Regarding claim 17, Schomann discloses a device 10 comprising a computing unit and processor 12 configured to execute the method for color customization of dental restorations (Fig. 1; abstract) Schomann discloses the steps of:
providing tooth measurement data (see Fig. 2 steps 32-34, paragraph [0038] “input into the processor tooth identification data corresponding to the tooth which is being replaced or restored…”), wherein the tooth measurement data includes at least one insertion area in which the dental restoration is to be inserted (paragraph [0039] “the oral imaging scanner 18 to generate digitized three-dimensional digital images of the affected teeth, i.e. the restoration site, adjacent teeth…”);
providing restoration data (Fig. 2 steps 36-40, 44, paragraph [0042] “processor additionally retrieves from memory a preferred tooth configuration from the tooth shape library…”);
providing information about staining or glazing colors (paragraph [0041] “utilizes a calorimetric value sampler”);
generating a color characteristic from the tooth measurement data or other information taking into account the restoration data (Fig. 2 step 42, paragraph [0041] “obtain colorimetric values of the tooth remnant and adjacent tooth surfaces…”)
calculating a multicolor target coloration from the color characteristic taking into account information about staining or glazing colors (Fig. 2 step 46 “determine… coloration of restoration”);
outputting of the multicolor target coloration for color customization of the dental restoration (Fig. 3 step 48 paragraph [0044] “transmits…coloration data to the fabrication station…”).
Schomann further discloses to calculating the multicolor target coloration by providing comparative data, performing a comparison of the comparative data with the color characteristic (Fig. 2 step 46 “determine coloration” from data 40 “image scan oral cavity”, 42 “sample colorimetric values”, s44 “retrieve library”, paragraph [0040] “sampling for calorimetric values”; paragraph [0041] “obtain colorimetric values of the tooth remnant and adjacent tooth surfaces…”).
Schomann discloses such calorimetric values sampling and matching with the library using the calorimetric value sampler 20 (Figs.1- 2; paragraph [0018], paragraph [0033] “a calorimeter which captures and digitizes the calorimetric values of teeth in hue, chroma, and luminous intensity as well as opacity”) which is considered to be equivalent to the recited “algorithm comprises an artificial intelligence which is designed to independently learn on the basis of a test data…”.
Schomann further discloses the processor configured to produce the dental restoration from a blank material and applying the target coloration thereto (Fig. 3; paragraphs [0018] “processor controlled coloration of a restoration”; paragraph [0019] “processor controlled three-dimensional…fabricating a dental restoration”).
Schomann discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including providing restoration data (Fig. 2 steps 36-40, 44, paragraph [0042] “processor additionally retrieves from memory a preferred tooth configuration from the tooth shape library…”). However, Schomann fails to disclose the restoration data for determining at least a blank material and a blank base color, in that the restoration data contains information about a blank material, a blank base color, etc. Krolikowski et al. discloses producing a dental restoration 106 with color customization including taking into consideration of characteristics of a blank material 105 and its blank base color (Fig. 1; paragraph [0020] “The individually required spatial dependency of color and/or opacity in a blank can be determined…”; paragraph [0027] “use of a blank which is made from ceramic, in particular glass ceramic, or from glass and which has a predefined spatial dependency of the material property color and/or opacity in its volume, for producing a dental restoration…”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schomann by providing restoration data containing information of the blank material and a blank base material as taught by Krolikowski in order to effectively provide a color customization of a dental restoration.
As to claims 23-27, Schomann discloses: the tooth measurement data are prepared in the form of a color image and/or comprising a comparison area arranged adjacent to the insertion area, (paragraphs [0039] - [0041] “generate digitized three-dimensional digital images…; utilizes the calorimetric value sampler 20 to obtain colorimetric values of the tooth remnant and adjacent tooth surfaces”); providing data of unprepared tooth… and of a prepared tooth (paragraph 39 “images of affected teeth… tooth remnant surfaces… are prepared for receiving a restoration”); outputting the multicolor target coloration includes output the multicolor target coloration to a printer (Fig. 3 step 48 “transmit… coloration data to fabrication station”).
As to claims 28-30, Schomann discloses the dental restoration is to be attached on a tooth remnant or abutment (paragraph 39 “tooth remnant or abutment to which a restoration is to be attached”); therefore, the tooth remnant or abutment is a tooth gap that the attached dental restoration closes. Schomann further discloses color customization of the dental restoration with different staining or glazing colors and finalizing the dental restoration (Fig. 3 steps 50-56; paragraphs 45-47).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim amendments fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection under Schomann in view of Krolikowski et al. as detailed above.
Note that Schomann discloses the processor configured to produce the dental restoration from a blank material and applying the target coloration thereto (Fig. 3; paragraphs [0018] “processor controlled coloration of a restoration”; paragraph [0019] “processor controlled three-dimensional…fabricating a dental restoration”).
Schomann discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including providing restoration data (Fig. 2 steps 36-40, 44, paragraph [0042] “processor additionally retrieves from memory a preferred tooth configuration from the tooth shape library…”). However, Schomann fails to disclose the restoration data for determining at least a blank material and a blank base color, in that the restoration data contains information about a blank material, a blank base color, etc. Krolikowski et al. discloses producing a dental restoration 106 with color customization including taking into consideration of characteristics of a blank material 105 and its blank base color (Fig. 1; paragraph [0020] “The individually required spatial dependency of color and/or opacity in a blank can be determined…”; paragraph [0027] “use of a blank which is made from ceramic, in particular glass ceramic, or from glass and which has a predefined spatial dependency of the material property color and/or opacity in its volume, for producing a dental restoration…”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schomann by providing restoration data containing information of the blank material and a blank base material as taught by Krolikowski in order to effectively provide a color customization of a dental restoration.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner HAO D. MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cris Rodriguez can be reached on (571) 272-4964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAO D MAI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights