DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1,11,12,15,16,26,27,28,39,40,66-69,71,72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciriello et al WO 2018154485 in view of Liang et al 20080062429.
With regard to claim 1, Ciriello et al disclose a method for generating a preparation surface of a tooth of a subject, the method comprising: a) receiving at at least one processor (paragraph 23), three dimensional imaging data (paragraph 38) of the tooth of the subject in an uncut state; b) determining with the at least one processor (paragraph 23) one or more parameters (occlusal contacts, proximal contacts, tooth edge, top surface, etc.) of the tooth of the subject by analyzing the image data; and c) generating with the at least one processor (paragraph 23) the preparation surface using the one or more parameters; wherein the preparation surface of the tooth comprises a three-dimensional model of the surface of the tooth, a cut region, or both. See paragraph 38. Furthermore, it is noted that Ciriello et al disclose that the extend of tooth decay is determined by analyzing the surface data. See paragraphs 23,44,46 and 51. Note especially in paragraph 51, lines 14-16, how the superimposition of a bitewing xray on the scanned tooth (this occurs before any cutting) allows tooth decay to be identified.
Ciriello et al do not disclose the 3D imaging data to be 3D imaging data comprising tomographic data. Liang et al disclose a method of imaging a tooth, which utilizes 3D tomographic data to determine the extent of decay of the tooth. See paragraphs 125-127 and Fig 13C.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the steps of obtaining tomographic 3D imaging data to determine an extent of decay, with the method of Ciriello et al, in view of the teaching of Liang et al that areas of decay of a tooth may be determined by obtaining 3D tomographic imaging data.
With regard to claims 11 and 12, Ciriello et al do not explicitly disclose determining a top surface, or an edge of, the preparation surface based on the extent of tooth decay.
However, Ciriello et al do disclose that the extent of tooth decay is used to determine boundaries for tooth reduction when preparing the tooth surface for restoration. This is clearly performed by the processor. See paragraph 51.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the extent of tooth decay to determine a top surface or an edge of the preparation surface, in the method of Ciriello et al/Liang et al, in view of the teaching of Ciriello et al that the extent of tooth decay may be used to determine boundaries for tooth restoration.
With regard to claims 15 and 16, note that Ciriello et al disclose automatically generating with the processor (all images generated are done so by the processor) a 3 dimensional model (paragraph 38) of a crown cavity surface by adding a pre-determined gap space to the crown preparation surface. See paragraph 51, lines 27-32 which disclose that a gap may be utilized when generating the crown cavity surface, by adding a predetermined gap space to the crown preparation surface. This is accomplished by occluding the opposing teeth and then subtracting the minimum thickness from the height of the opposing tooth, into the tooth being cut (prepared). Ciriello et al note that this gap can eventually be filled with restorative material. With regard to claim 16, this gap is considered to be a "desired marginal gap".
With regard to claim 26, note that Ciriello et al also includes interpolating with the processor, the imaging data to estimate interproximal contact, occluded interproximal contact, occluded subgingival contact, or any combination thereof. See paragraph 43 which discloses how 2D planes are placed as barriers between adjacent teeth to identify where one tooth ends, and where another tooth starts. This is how the program 20 estimates interproximal contact.
With regard to claim 27, note how the imaging data is segmented, with the processor, into one or more groups, wherein at least one group represents of the tooth of the subject. See paragraph 38 which discloses how an editable pre-surgical mesh is used to identify a target tooth ("segments" the tooth from the initially scanned arch, into a group).
With regard to claim 28, note that processing the surface data comprises intersecting with the processor, a plane along an x-y direction with the imaging data, to determine a width, a nominal center, or both, of the tooth. See paragraph 38, which discloses how a 2D plane (x-y direction) is intersected with the surface data (the plane defines where one tooth ends, and where one begins), thus inherently determining a width of a tooth. With regard to claim 30, note missing surface patch 174 (restoration mesh) to replace missing scanned surfaces of the tooth in the imaging data. See paragraph 51 and figure 7.
With regard to claims 39 and 40, note that the method further comprises generating a prosthetic external surface 158 based on a volumetric boundary for the prosthetic. Note how the proximal external surface 158 contacts an adjacent tooth (phantom line, to the right). See figure 7.
With regard to claims 66-68, note that Liang et al discloses that the tomography data comprises optical coherence tomography data, including CBCT data (see fig. 13B), and note how the entire tooth is encompassed, including interproximal regions.
With regard to claims 69 and 71, note how Ciriello et al generates with a processor, a 3 dimensional shape (this is inherent) for a prosthetic to be installed on the preparation surface, carried out jointly with the generating of the preparation surface. See fig. 7, and paragraph 38.
With regard to claim 72, note how Ciriello et al utilizes an automated dental drill to cut the tooth of the subject, based on the three-dimensional model of the preparation surface. See paragraphs 38 and 39.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciriello et al WO 2018154485 in view of Liang et al 20080062429, and further in view of Kuo 20070129991.
With regard to claim 42, Ciriello et al/Liang et al do not disclose performing an iterative Finite Element Analysis to optimize the shape of a prosthetic internal surface for reduced stress forces.
Kuo discloses a method in which an iterative Finite Element Analysis is utilized via a processor, in order to generate an optimal dental appliance. See paragraph 113.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize an iterative Finite Element Analysis with the method of generating surface data of Ciriello et al/Liang et al, in view of the teaching of Kuo that an iterative Finite Element Analysis can be used to optimize a method of forming a dental appliance.
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciriello et al WO 2018154485 in view of Liang et al 20080062429, and further in view of Fok et al 20230338114 (newly cited).
With regard to claim 70, Ciriello et al/Liang et al do not disclose the steps of determining, with the at least one processor, at least one of stress within the tooth following installation of the prosthetic, strain within the tooth following installation of the prosthetic, stress within the prosthetic following installation, and strain within the prosthetic following installation, wherein the generating of the three-dimensional model of the prosthetic and the generating of three-dimensional model of the preparation surface are carried out based on said at least one of stress within the tooth following installation of the prosthetic, strain within the tooth following installation of the prosthetic, stress within the prosthetic following installation, and strain within the prosthetic following installation.
Fok et al disclose a method in which material stresses within the tooth following restoration are predicted via a processor/algorithm. See paragraph 56.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine, with the processor of Ciriello et al/Liang et al, stress within the tooth following installation of a prosthetic and generating the three dimensional model of the prosthetic and three dimensional model of the preparation based on the stress within the tooth following installation of the prosthetic, in view of the teaching of Fok et al that a processor can be utilized to determine stress within the tooth following installation of a prosthetic.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are based on the assertion that Ciriello et al does not disclose “receiving, at at least one processor, three-dimensional (3D) imaging data of the tooth of the subject in an uncut state.” (Response, page 6).
This is not found persuasive. Ciriello et al discloses the processor receiving (via the imaging device) 3D imaging data in an uncut state. This occurs at two distinct times: 1) When the tooth is first scanned (see paragraph 23, this occurs prior to any procedures being formed on the tooth), and 2) When the bitewing xray is overlaid with the images prior to any procedures being performed on the tooth (paragraph 51, lines 14-16 clearly disclose how a bitewing xray is overlaid (by the processor) and can include indications of tooth decay.
Applicant also provides arguments with regard to claims 11 and 12, stating that Ciriello et al does not disclose the limitations in these claims because Ciriello et al relies on user input to ultimately determine the margins to capture decay or existing restorative material.
This is not found persuasive. It is the examiner’s position that the processor ultimately decides, based on user input as well as the images already acquired, where the top surface and the edge of the preparation surface should be.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772