DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 06/24/2025
Claims 1, 5-12, and 14-17 are presented for examination
Drawings
The drawings dated 09/15/2021 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Abstract
The abstract dated 12/10/2024 has been reviewed. It has 138 words, and contains no legal phraseology. It is accepted.
Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments - 101
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a significant solution (interpreted to mean an improvement) to a technical problem by allowing for more accurate shade matching for dental restorations.
Examiner responds by explaining that this alleged improvement is provided solely by the mental process and mathematical process, i.e. designing the tooth representation, calculating deviations between the original tooth and the representation, and making adjustments to it until it matches the original. As per the MPEP, (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I): An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) As such, this alleged improvement does not overcome the rejection.
Response to Arguments - 103
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that because Alexander detects red, green, and blue wavelengths of light it is not capable of detecting colors and merely detects “wavelengths”
Examiner responds by explaining that a system that detects red/green/blue wavelengths in the color of pixels, such as Alexander ([Page 54 line 12 – Page 55 line 4] “It will be understood that the spectral data may be provided … as discrete values a small set of wavelengths or wavelength bands, such as red-green-blue intensity data. Pixels with similar spectral content may be identified based on the calculation of a spectral similarity measure between adjacent pixels.”) is detecting the color of those pixels.
Applicant argues that the use of Alexander is improper because it is not directed to determining the shade of dental restorations specifically and the color detection is for the purpose of determining material rather than the color of a tooth.
Examiner responds by explaining that an individual prior art reference used in combination with other references need not be directed to the exact same invention for the exact same purpose as envisioned by the inventors of the present disclosure as long as that reference is analogous and discloses similar elements.
Alexander is analogous art because it is within the field of medical data processing, and teaches the detecting colors and determining the difference in those colors ([Page 54 line 12 – Page 55 line 4] “It will be understood that the spectral data may be provided … as discrete values a small set of wavelengths or wavelength bands, such as red-green-blue intensity data. Pixels with similar spectral content may be identified based on the calculation of a spectral similarity measure between adjacent pixels. For example, a spectral similarity measure for two pixels may be calculated by summing, over all wavelengths, the square of the difference 25 between the values of the two intensity spectra (optionally after initially normalizing the two spectra), and dividing the result by the square of the average net intensity (summed over all wavelength values) of the two pixels. In such a case, two pixels may be deemed to have similar spectral responses if their spectral similarity measure is less than a pre-selected threshold value.” [Page 64 line 9-11] “It should be noted that the context parameter used to identify the blood, would be its visible wavelength (color) spectrum.”)
Although this is done to determine the material, that determination is a further processing step based on the initial color detection and determining the similarity between colors, analogous to the claimed step of using a spectral distance to measure the difference in color information.
Applicant argues that no prior art teaches superimposing a first data set over a second data set
Examiner responds by explaining that the combination of the previously presented references does in fact teach this feature, in particular:
Korten teaches calculating (S104) a deviation (AES,I) between the target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I) ([Par 34] “For example based on the comparison the user may determine a difference of the color of the dental restoration model relative to the reference object, and change a color of a layer of the dental restoration model accordingly to generally compensate such a difference. Such comparison and change of color may be repeated until the desired color of a layer or the resulting tooth color is reached. A difference in colors between the dental restoration model and the reference object may further be visualized in the form of data, for example in the form the so-called "Delta E" value.”) ([Par 34] “In one embodiment the method further comprises the step of visualizing a reference object which exhibits a reference color.”) and the actual data set (DS-I); ([Par 33] “In one embodiment the method comprises the step of visualizing the dental restoration model”)
While Alexander teaches obtaining information by superimposing data on other data ([Page 36 line 4-8] “In one mode, images can be acquired by sweeping through the different image acquisition modes to provide multiple serially obtained (e.g. almost simultaneously obtained) images of different types which can be combined into an overlaid representation and displayed to the operator.” [Page 73 line 18-23] “The additional images from the second imaging modality may be displayed according to a wide variety of different configurations, such as displaying the images from the first and second imaging modalities in a side-by-side configuration or in an overlaid configuration (optionally after having registered the images from the first imaging modality with those of the second imaging modality).”)
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, 5-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
A method for designing a dental restoration (207), comprising the steps: … generating (S102) a digital tooth model (221) with an internal architecture; rendering (S103) the digital tooth model (221) based on the internal architecture to generate an actual data set that reflects the optical properties and/or the geometry of the digital tooth model (221);
Generating, rendering, and creating a dataset from a model of a tooth is a mental process that is equivalent to imagining and then drawing a rendition of a tooth, as with a pencil and paper, and writing a representation of data that reflects the properties of the drawn tooth, such as a table of physical dimensions or a color value of the tooth in a particular region.
Doing this digitally merely amounts to mere instructions to apply this judicial exception on a generic computer.
Iterative altering (S105) the digital tooth model (221) to obtain a smaller deviation (AES,I) between the determined target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I) of a re-rendered digital tooth model (221);
Iteratively altering the model in such a manner is a mental process equivalent to repeatedly modifying and redrawing the tooth and its associated property representations until the properties of the drawn tooth more closely match the measured properties of a natural tooth, as obtained in the data gathering step explained below.
The claim also recites a mathematic process, specifically:
calculating (S104) a deviation (AES,I) between the target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I) by superimposing the target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I); and … wherein the deviation (AES,I) is calculated on the basis of a spectral distance between the target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I), wherein the spectral distance is used to measure the difference in color information;
Calculating the numeric difference between two data sets is a mathematic operation and is therefore a mathematic process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Data gathering:
determining (S101) a target data set (DS-S) based on a natural tooth (205), which reflects the optical properties and/or the geometry of the natural tooth (205); … wherein the target data set (DS-I) comprises data about color information of the tooth (205) and/or data about a color spectrum of the tooth (205);
Determining this target data set merely consists of gathering data about a patient’s tooth, such as measuring the dimensions or color of the tooth.
Post-Solution Activity:
wherein the dental restoration (207) is produced by a multi-material 3D printing device or a milling device.
This element merely acts on the results of the previous abstract steps. A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
A method for designing a dental restoration (207), comprising the steps: … generating (S102) a digital tooth model (221) with an internal architecture; rendering (S103) the digital tooth model (221) based on the internal architecture to generate an actual data set that reflects the optical properties and/or the geometry of the digital tooth model (221);
As explained above, creating this tooth model is a mental process. Specifying that it is a digital tooth model merely implements this mental process on a generic computer, and therefore amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitations are mere data gathering or post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity), Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, or a general purpose computer and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Data gathering:
determining (S101) a target data set (DS-S) based on a natural tooth (205), which reflects the optical properties and/or the geometry of the natural tooth (205); … wherein the target data set (DS-I) comprises data about color information of the tooth (205) and/or data about a color spectrum of the tooth (205);
Determining this target data set merely consists of gathering data about a patient’s tooth, such as measuring the dimensions or color of the tooth.
The courts have recognized that gathering data through generic measurement means is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011))
Post-Solution Activity:
wherein the dental restoration (207) is produced a multi-material 3D printing device or a milling device.
This element merely acts on the results of the previous abstract steps. A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution.
Mere Instructions to Apply:
A method for designing a dental restoration (207), comprising the steps: … generating (S102) a digital tooth model (221) with an internal architecture; rendering (S103) the digital tooth model (221) based on the internal architecture to generate an actual data set that reflects the optical properties and/or the geometry of the digital tooth model (221);
As explained above, creating this tooth model is a mental process. Specifying that it is a digital tooth model merely implements this mental process on a generic computer, and therefore amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer. See (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i)) “A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer,” [Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); ]
In addition, the following are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
generating (S102) a digital tooth model (221) … wherein the dental restoration (207) is produced by a multi-material 3D printing device or a milling device is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as evidenced by:
How Dental Dentures are Made ([Page 2 Par 5-6])
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “digital tooth model” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the consideration of whether they constitute significantly more, and have been determined not to constitute such.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 5 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the target data set (DS-S) is captured by a digital camera, a 3D scanner, a 3D camera system, a spectrometer, or a digitized color key.”
This merely clarifies the mechanism by which the tooth data is gathered, and is therefore merely an extension of the data gathering step.
Claim 6 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the target data set (DS-S) comprises optical properties of a residual tooth (209).”
This merely clarifies what type of tooth the data for the target data set is gathered from, and is therefore merely an extension of the data gathering step.
Claim 7 recites “The method according to claim 6, wherein the digital tooth model (221) is rendered on the basis of the optical properties of the residual tooth (209), the geometry of the residual tooth, the surrounding neighboring teeth, the oral situation, the consideration of the gingiva or gum color and/or the adhesive material used for fixing the dental restoration (207) on the residual tooth (209).”
This merely clarifies what data the rendered model is based on, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process and mere instructions to apply the judicial exception of rendering it.
Claim 8 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of generating the digital tooth model (221) comprises the step of importing, calculating and/or specifying a tooth model (221) having a predetermined internal architecture.”
Importing data, i.e. loading data from memory is explicitly recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;)
Calculating is a mathematic process, and therefore calculating the form of the tooth model is mathematic concept.
Finally, “specifying” the tooth model is a mental process equivalent to drawing a model of a tooth with a pencil and paper.
Claim 9 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the digital tooth model (221) is rendered at an angle that corresponds to the shooting angle when capturing the tooth (205) and/or a predetermined light situation.”
This merely clarifies the perspective from which the tooth model should be drawn, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental process and mere instructions to apply the judicial exception of rendering it.
Claim 10 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the digital tooth model (221) is altered by changing a material assignment to a sub-volume.”
Changing the assigned material of a part of the tooth model is a mental process that is equivalent to noting the material of that region, such as by writing the name of the chosen material with an arrow pointing to the region on the drawing.
Claim 11 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the digital tooth model (221) is altered by changing the sub-volume while retaining the outer geometry.”
This merely amounts to a mental process equivalent to redrawing the inside of the tooth while keeping the original outline the same.
Claim 12 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the dental restoration (207) is fabricated based on the actual data set (DS-I).”
This merely clarifies what data set is used when fabrication the restoration, and is therefore merely an extension of the post-solution activity.
Claim 14 recites “A computer apparatus (200) for designing a dental restoration (207), comprising a sensor (203) for detecting a target data set based on a natural tooth, configured to perform the method according to claim 1.”
This claim merely recites a generic computer on which to implement the judicial exception steps of claim 1, and therefore amounts to not more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Claim 15 recites “A computer apparatus (200) for designing a dental restoration (207) comprising a sensor (203) for detecting a target data set based on a natural tooth and a computing device with at least one algorithm that is configured to perform the method of claim 1.”
This claim merely recites a generic computer on which to implement the judicial exception steps of claim 1, and therefore amounts to not more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Claim 16 recites “A computer program comprising instructions that cause a computer device comprising a sensor (203) for detecting a target data set based on a natural tooth, to perform the process steps according to claim 1.”
See rejection of claim 16 below regarding the claim being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 17 recites “A computer program product comprising program code which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, the machine-readable medium comprising computer instructions executable by a processor, which computer instructions cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1.”
This claim merely recites generic computer components on which to implement the judicial exception steps of claim 1, and therefore amounts to not more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Further, regarding claim 16, the claim(s) are directed to a “computer program.” Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations are not directed to any of the statutory categories (MPEP 2106.03).
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.
(1) Claims 1, 5-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korten (US 20140372085 A1) in view of Esbech (US 20180153664 A1) in further view of Alexander (CA 2902771 A1)
Claim 1. Korten makes obvious A method for designing a dental restoration (207), comprising the steps: ([Par 12] “The invention in one aspect relates to a method of making a dental restoration”) determining (S101) a target data set (DS-S) based on a natural tooth (205), which reflects the optical properties and/or the geometry of the natural tooth (205); ([Par 59] “The skilled person will recognize several alternative ways for providing a computer model of a tooth structure. For example the tooth structure may be directly scanned in the patient's mouth for providing a tooth structure model, or the tooth structure may be scanned from the dental impression and inverted. Further the tooth structure may be designed using a dental CAD system.” [Par 48] “The system is adapted for visualizing a three-dimensional reference surface that is based on a shape of at least one of a tooth structure of a tooth to be restored in a patient's dentition, and a dental restoration for the tooth.”) generating (S102) a digital tooth model (221) with an internal architecture; rendering (S103) the digital tooth model (221) based on the internal architecture to generate an actual data set that reflects the optical properties and/or the geometry of the digital tooth model (221); ([Fig. 5] Shows a CAD designed tooth restoration model including internal structures rendered in a software window [Fig. 3] Shows another designed digital restoration model [Par 63] “FIG. 3 shows a computer model 30 of the dental restoration. The dental restoration model 30 is defined between a computer simulated tooth-facing surface 31 and a computer simulated outer dental restoration surface 32. The tooth-facing surface 31 may at least partially correspond in shape to the tooth structure model obtained from the shape of the patient's dentition. Accordingly the tooth structure model may be used to generate the tooth-facing surface of the dental restoration” [Par 40] “In a further embodiment the method further comprises the step of providing a computer model of the dental restoration based on the tooth structure model. The dental restoration model may be provided in the form of data which are suitable to define the shape and the color of the dental restoration.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
330
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
457
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
calculating (S104) a deviation (AES,I) between the target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I) ([Par 34] “For example based on the comparison the user may determine a difference of the color of the dental restoration model relative to the reference object”) ([Par 34] “In one embodiment the method further comprises the step of visualizing a reference object which exhibits a reference color.”) and the actual data set (DS-I); ([Par 33] “In one embodiment the method comprises the step of visualizing the dental restoration model”) and iterative altering (S105) the digital tooth model (221) to obtain a smaller deviation (AES,I) between the determined target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I) of a re-rendered digital tooth model (221); ([Par 34] “For example based on the comparison the user may determine a difference of the color of the dental restoration model relative to the reference object, and change a color of a layer of the dental restoration model accordingly to generally compensate such a difference. Such comparison and change of color may be repeated until the desired color of a layer or the resulting tooth color is reached. A difference in colors between the dental restoration model and the reference object may further be visualized in the form of data, for example in the form the so-called "Delta E" value.”) wherein the deviation (AES,I) ([Par 34] “For example based on the comparison the user may determine a difference of the color of the dental restoration model relative to the reference object,”) is calculated on the basis of a ([Par 59] “The skilled person will recognize several alternative ways for providing a computer model of a tooth structure. For example the tooth structure may be directly scanned in the patient's mouth for providing a tooth structure model, or the tooth structure may be scanned from the dental impression and inverted.”) and the actual data set (DS-I), ([Par 40] “In a further embodiment the method further comprises the step of providing a computer model of the dental restoration based on the tooth structure model. The dental restoration model may be provided in the form of data which are suitable to define the shape and the color of the dental restoration.”) wherein the ([Par 34] “… A difference in colors between the dental restoration model and the reference object may further be visualized in the form of data, for example in the form the so-called "Delta E" value.”) wherein the target data set (DS-I) comprises data about color information of the tooth (205) and/or data about a color spectrum of the tooth (205); ([Par 35] “In one embodiment the method further comprises the step of providing color data relating to one or more colors of at least one tooth in the patient's dentition … . Such color data may for example be obtained by a dental practitioner visually or by use of a color measuring device and provided in the form of data in the method of the invention.”)
Korten fails to make obvious obtaining information by superimposing data on other data; using a spectral distance to measure the difference in color information; wherein the dental restoration (207) is produced by a multi-material 3D printing device or a milling device.
Esbech makes obvious and wherein the dental restoration (207) is produced by a multi-material 3D printing device or a milling device. ([Par 20] “In many cases, the dental restoration is manufactured with a shade profile … Multi-shaded milling blocks exits which mimics standard tooth shade profiles. Having the shape data and the tooth shade values linked via the digital 3D representation provides that the correct portion of the multi-shaded milling block can be milled out.”)
Esbech is analogous art because it is within the field of dental restoration planning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine it with Korten before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better color designed dental restorations to match the patient’s other teeth. As explained by Esbech ([Par 3] “When designing and manufacturing a dental restoration for a patient, such as a crown or a bridge restoration, it is advantageous that both the shape and shade of the manufactured restoration is adapted to the patient's natural teeth surrounding the restoration. If the shade of the restoration differs significantly from the surrounding natural teeth, e.g. is significantly darker or brighter than these, the restoration appear artificial and deteriorate the aesthetic impression of the patient's smile.”) To this end, Esbech presents a system that determines an accurate shade of a patient’s tooth so restorations can be made to more closely match the patient’s surrounding teeth ([Par 8-10] “Disclosed is a method for determining shade of a patient's tooth, wherein the method comprises: obtaining a digital 3D representation of the tooth, where the digital 3D representation comprises shape data and texture data for the tooth; and determining a tooth shade value for at least one point on the tooth based on the texture data of the corresponding point of the digital 3D representation and on known texture values of one or more reference tooth shade values.” [Par 20] “In many cases, the dental restoration is manufactured with a shade profile where the shade differs from the incisal edge towards cervical end of the restoration. The disclosed invention allows the operator to determine tooth shade values for several points on the tooth such that a shade profile can be determined for the dental restoration. Multi-shaded milling blocks exits which mimics standard tooth shade profiles. … The remaining portion of the multi-shaded milling block forming the dental restoration will then have a shape and shade profile which closely resembles that of a natural tooth.”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Esbech with Korten would result in a system that allowed the design of more natural looking dental restorations that better matched the rest of the patient’s teeth.
The combination of Korten and Esbech fails to make obvious obtaining information by superimposing data on other data; using a spectral distance to measure the difference in color information;
Alexander makes obvious obtaining information by superimposing data on other data; ([Page 36 line 4-8] “In one mode, images can be acquired by sweeping through the different image acquisition modes to provide multiple serially obtained (e.g. almost simultaneously obtained) images of different types which can be combined into an overlaid representation and displayed to the operator.” [Page 73 line 18-23] “The additional images from the second imaging modality may be displayed according to a wide variety of different configurations, such as displaying the images from the first and second imaging modalities in a side-by-side configuration or in an overlaid configuration (optionally after having registered the images from the first imaging modality with those of the second imaging modality).”) using a spectral distance to measure the difference in color information; ([Page 54 line 12 – Page 55 line 4] “It will be understood that the spectral data may be provided … as discrete values a small set of wavelengths or wavelength bands, such as red-green-blue intensity data. Pixels with similar spectral content may be identified based on the calculation of a spectral similarity measure between adjacent pixels. For example, a spectral similarity measure for two pixels may be calculated by summing, over all wavelengths, the square of the difference 25 between the values of the two intensity spectra (optionally after initially normalizing the two spectra), and dividing the result by the square of the average net intensity (summed over all wavelength values) of the two pixels. In such a case, two pixels may be deemed to have similar spectral responses if their spectral similarity measure is less than a pre-selected threshold value.” [Page 64 line 9-11] “It should be noted that the context parameter used to identify the blood, would be its visible wavelength (color) spectrum.” [Examiner’s note: the “intensity spectra” disclosed describe color data. “Spectral similarity” is another term for spectral distance, and thus determining the spectral similarity between intensity spectra is equivalent to determining the spectral distance between color data])
Alexander is analogous art because it is within the field of medical data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Alexander with Korten and Esbech before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to make the restoration procedure using the designed restoration more time efficient and easier for the dentist/surgeon to perform ([Page 62 Par 1-5] “In each stage there are applicable adaptive processes that can run to streamline the procedure to provide more accurate and time efficient surgical procedures” [Page 22 line 1-5] “…may be employed for a wide range of medical
procedures. Examples of other types of medical procedures including orthopedic, trauma, gastrological, … oral and maxillofacial, …, dental, and other surgical, diagnostic or therapeutic medical procedures.”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Alexander with Korten and Esbech would result in a system that allows the restoration to be implemented faster and with more precision.
Claim 5. Korten makes obvious The method according to claim 1, wherein the target data set (DS-S) is captured by a digital camera, a 3D scanner, ([Par 5] “capturing the shape of a patient's teeth, for example by scanning a plaster model of the patient's teeth or alternatively by scanning the actual teeth in the patient's mouth;” [Par 59] “…for example using an optical digital scanner … the tooth structure may be directly scanned in the patient's mouth for providing a tooth structure model”) a 3D camera system, a spectrometer, or a digitized color key.
Claim 6. Korten makes obvious The method according to claim 1, wherein the target data set (DS-S) comprises optical properties of a residual tooth (209). ([Par 39] “In one embodiment the method further comprises the step of providing a computer model of the tooth structure of the tooth or teeth to be restored. Such a tooth structure may relate to a tooth stump, a dental implant, or a dental abutment. The computer model of the tooth structure may accordingly comprise a representation of a three-dimensional outer surface of the tooth stump, the implant, or the abutment.”)
Claim 7. Korten makes obvious The method according to claim 6, wherein the digital tooth model (221) is rendered ([Fig. 5] Shows a digital tooth model rendered in a software window) on the basis of the optical properties of the residual tooth (209), the geometry of the residual tooth, the surrounding neighboring teeth, ([Par 39] “In one embodiment the method further comprises the step of providing a computer model of the tooth structure of the tooth or teeth to be restored. Such a tooth structure may relate to a tooth stump, a dental implant, or a dental abutment. The computer model of the tooth structure may accordingly comprise a representation of a three-dimensional outer surface of the tooth stump, the implant, or the abutment. The tooth structure may be complemented by the dental restoration to a single restored tooth, for example may be complemented by a dental crown, or may be complemented by the dental restoration to two or more restored teeth, for example a dental bridge. Further the tooth structure may comprise at least two tooth stumps, implants, abutments or combinations thereof, for example for fixing a dental bridge thereon.”) the oral situation, ([Par 40] “The outer dental restoration surface may be provided by using a standard tooth model from a database holding a plurality of standard tooth shapes that may be modified to fit with the geometric constraints and requirements of a particular clinical situation in a patient's mouth.”) ([Par 74] “The dental framework model 101 has a computer simulated tooth-facing surface 101a and a computer simulated veneer-facing surface 101b… The enlargement relative to the shape of the stump provides for a gap between the stump and the finished framework for accommodating a bonding material, for example a dental cement, for affixing the finished framework to the stump.”)
Claim 8. Korten makes obvious The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of generating the digital tooth model (221) comprises the step of importing, calculating and/or specifying a tooth model (221) having a predetermined internal architecture. ([Par 8] “Then, a digital three-dimensional representation of the external surface of the cap is defined on the basis of the external and internal surfaces of the prosthesis.” [Par 64] “Such a standard tooth shape may for example be selected from a database storing a plurality of standard tooth shapes in the form of computer surface models.”)
Claim 9. Korten makes obvious The method according to claim 1, wherein the digital tooth model (221) is rendered at an angle that corresponds to the shooting angle when capturing the tooth (205) and/or a predetermined light situation. ([Par 32] “Further the dental restoration model and/or the model of one or more neighboring teeth may be visualized at different illuminations, for example illuminated from different perspectives and/or by use of different light sources (point or surface light).”)
Claim 10. Korten makes obvious The method according to claim 1, wherein the digital tooth model (221) is altered by changing a material assignment to a sub-volume. ([Par 42] “In a preferred embodiment the method further comprises the steps of providing the dental restoration model comprised of a plurality of layers of which at least two are assigned different colors, for example the dental restoration model may be entirely comprised of the plurality of layers. This preferably allows the making of the dental restoration monolithically out of generally the same type of material color shaded to resemble a natural tooth or teeth. For example the dental restoration may be made entirely of differently colored ceramic material or glass ceramic material.” [Par 69] “The CAD system may be adapted such that the cursor can be positioned within the dental veneer model 34 and used to deposit a virtual material layer of a defined color and size. Preferably each of the material color, thickness and size is user selectable, for example from a computer menu displaying discrete predefined tooth colors or from a discrete or continuous color palette.”)
Claim 11. Korten makes obvious The method according to claim 1, wherein the digital tooth model (221) is altered by changing the sub-volume while retaining the outer geometry. ([Par 26] “On the other hand the dental restoration may be colored without affecting the outer geometry of the dental restoration or the geometry of the dental framework, for example” [Par 42] “In a preferred embodiment the method further comprises the steps of providing the dental restoration model comprised of a plurality of layers of which at least two are assigned different colors, for example the dental restoration model may be entirely comprised of the plurality of layers. This preferably allows the making of the dental restoration monolithically out of generally the same type of material color shaded to resemble a natural tooth or teeth. For example the dental restoration may be made entirely of differently colored ceramic material or glass ceramic material.”)
Claim 12. Korten makes obvious The method according to claim 1, wherein the dental restoration (207) is fabricated based on the actual data set (DS-I). ([Par 47] “In a further embodiment the method comprises the step of manufacturing the dental restoration based on the dental restoration model and the layers the dental restoration model comprises. The method may further comprise the step of providing shape and color information of the dental restoration in the form of manufacturing data to a manufacturing machine. A suitable manufacturing machine may for example be a build-up or rapid prototyping machine which may allow for building up the dental restoration, or a precursor thereof, according to the shape and colors defined in the manufacturing data.”)
Claim 14. Esbech makes obvious A computer apparatus (200) for designing a dental restoration (207), comprising a sensor (203) for detecting a target data set based on a natural tooth, configured to perform the method according to claim 1. ([Par 164] FIG. 6 shows a schematic of a system for determining tooth shade values. The system 640 comprises a computer device 642 comprising a computer readable medium 643 and a processor 644. The system further comprises a visual display unit 647, a computer keyboard 645 and a computer mouse 646 for entering data and activating virtual buttons in a user interface visualized on the visual display unit 647. The visual display unit can be a computer screen. The computer device 642 is capable of receiving a digital 3D representation of the patient's set of teeth from a scanning device 641, such as the TRIOS intra-oral color scanner manufactured by 3 shape A/S, or capable of receiving scan data from such a scanning device and forming a digital 3D representation of the patient's set of teeth based on such scan data.)
Claim 15. Esbech makes obvious A computer apparatus (200) for designing a dental restoration (207) comprising a sensor (203) for detecting a target data set based on a natural tooth and a computing device ([Par 164] FIG. 6 shows a schematic of a system for determining tooth shade values. The system 640 comprises a computer device 642 comprising a computer readable medium 643 and a processor 644. The system further comprises a visual display unit 647, a computer keyboard 645 and a computer mouse 646 for entering data and activating virtual buttons in a user interface visualized on the visual display unit 647. The visual display unit can be a computer screen. The computer device 642 is capable of receiving a digital 3D representation of the patient's set of teeth from a scanning device 641, such as the TRIOS intra-oral color scanner manufactured by 3 shape A/S, or capable of receiving scan data from such a scanning device and forming a digital 3D representation of the patient's set of teeth based on such scan data.) with at least one algorithm that is configured to perform the method of claim 1. ([Par 31] “The tooth shade region can be defined by a structure encircling a portion of the tooth surface in the digital 3D representation, where either the operator or a computer implemented algorithm decides where each geometric structure is located on the digital 3D representation”)
Claim 16. Esbech makes obvious A computer program comprising instructions that cause a computer device comprising a sensor (203) for detecting a target data set based on a natural tooth, to perform the process steps according to claim 1. ([Par 198] “The features of the method described above and in the following may be implemented in software and carried out on a data processing system or other processing means caused by the execution of computer-executable instructions. The instructions may be program code means loaded in a memory, such as a RAM, from a storage medium or from another computer via a computer network.”)
Claim 17. Esbech makes obvious A computer program product comprising program code which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, the machine-readable medium comprising computer instructions executable by a processor, which computer instructions cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1. ([Par 50] “In a further embodiment the system comprises a computer and software for performing the method steps of the invention.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Mirabito whose telephone number is (703)756-1494. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 am - 6:30 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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/M.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187