DETAILED ACTION
A summary of this action:
Claims 13-20 have been presented for examination.
This action is Final.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter." Here, Applicant argues that the newly amended claim limitations have been integrated into a practical application, cites Diamond v. Diehr 450 U.S. 175,209 USPQ 1 (1981), and argues “the claimed process is patent eligible because of the way the above-noted steps of the claimed process integrate the step of --selecting, via the user interface of the computer, a material thickness of a platform of the abutment starting from the defined emergence profile within a predetermined range saved in an electronic memory-- into the claimed process as a whole.”
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees that Applicant’s newly proposed claim limitation of reducing a material quantity output of a manufacturing machine based on the selected material thickness of the platform of the abutment overcomes the 101 rejection because the claim limitation is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) or in the alternative is use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter. Here, Applicant argues that the combination of cited prior art references fail to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious new independent claim 13 because there is a solid body or filled body with a screw passage resulting in the operator having no room to maneuver. Applicant then argues that the newly amended claim limitations by having a hollow body and not as deep abutment, which results in an improved adhesive joint between the coronal platform surface of the abutment and prosthetic filling. Furthermore, Applicant argues that using such an improved computer model of the abutment for manufacturing the abutment is neither taught nor suggested in the prior art and that the newly amended claims are allowable over the prior art references.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments as the newly amended claims of providing 3D data of the emergence profile followed by data on the preparation limit having the 3D representation thereof is essentially a solid having a filled body with the known emergence profile on the outside surface, are taught by the combination of BOERJES, KERN, and YAMAMOTO prior art references. Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained.
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 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 13-18 and 20 are directed to a method, which is a process and is a statutory category invention. Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture and is a statutory category invention. Therefore, claims 13-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 13, and 14 similarly recite an abstract idea because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper or in the alternative Mathematical Concepts using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.
Claims 13 recites selecting, via a user interface of the computer, a definition of a predetermined preparation limit based on a gingiva configuration which is individual for the patient, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing where the abutment is to take place, as described in [pdf page 8 of 11 | Lines 18-21] of the specification.
Claim 13 recites defining, by the computer, an emergence profile of the abutment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of defining the three-dimensional geometry of the abutment above a preparation limit, as described in [pdf page 8 of 11 | Lines 22-25] of the specification.
Claim 13 recites designing, by the computer, a three-dimensional geometry of the abutment above the selected preparation limit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of defining the emergence profile E of the abutment is effected by an operator of the computer 3 or by an algorithm, as described in [pdf page 4 of 11 | Lines 1-3] of the specification.
Claims 13 and 14 similarly recite selecting, via the user interface of the computer, a material thickness of a platform of the abutment starting from the defined emergence profile within a predetermined range saved in an electronic memory, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing the three-dimensional geometry of the abutment to be selected below the preparation limit, as described in [pdf page 4 of 11 | Lines 1-8] of the specification.
Claim 13 recites generating, by the computer, a three-dimensional computer model having the selected material thickness of the platform of the abutment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing the three-dimensional computer model, as described in [pdf page 6 of 11 | Lines 12-15] of the specification.
Claims 13 and 14 similarly recite wherein: the abutment includes a base, a connecting structure for connecting the abutment to the pin-shaped dental implant, a coronal platform surface of the platform of the abutment for supporting a prosthetic fitting, and a screw passage for fixing the abutment to the pin-shaped dental implant, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing a pin-shaped dental implant and a coronally looking platform, as described in [pdf page 8 of 11 | Lines 1-9] of the specification.
Claim 13 recites plate configuration of the coronal platform surface is below the selected preparation limit for the designed three-dimensional geometry of the platform of the abutment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing a plate configuration of the coronal platform surface that is below the selected preparation limit, as described in [pdf page 10 of 11 | Lines 2-9] of the specification.
Claim 14 recites generating, by a computer, a three-dimensional start computer model of the abutment such that a region extending radially between a screw passage of the abutment and an emergence profile of the abutment is represented as being filled with material, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing a second variant of the invention, as described in [pdf page 6 of 11 | lines 3-8] of the specification.
Claim 14 recites performing, by the computer, a transformation to obtain a three-dimensional finish computer model from the three-dimensional start computer model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing a a transformation to obtain a three-dimensional finish, as described in [pdf page 10 of 11 | lines 1-5] of the specification.
Claim 14 recites a plate configuration of the coronal platform surface is below the selected preparation limit for the designed three-dimensional geometry of the platform, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitation covers mental processes of assessing a plate configuration of the coronal platform surface that is below the selected preparation limit, as described in [pdf page 10 of 11 | Lines 2-9] of the specification.
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 15-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims. See analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 13 recites the additional limitation “computer” as in independent claims 13 and 14, and dependent claims 15, 16, and 19, “computer-readable storage medium” as in dependent claim 19, “electronic memory” as in independent claims 13 and 14 and dependent claims 15-17, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation retrieving, by a computer, a pre-existing three-dimensional representation of a jaw of the patient, in independent claim 13, can be viewed as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation reducing a material quantity output of a manufacturing machine based on the selected material thickness of the platform of the abutment, in independent claims 13 and 14, can be viewed as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation manufacturing, by the manufacturing machine, the abutment based on the generated three-dimensional computer model, in independent claims 13 and 14, can be viewed as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation having a program stored thereon for causing a computer to perform the method of claim 13, as in dependent claim 19, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 15-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 13 recites the additional limitation “computer” as in independent claims 13 and 14, and dependent claims 15, 16, and 19, “computer-readable storage medium” as in dependent claim 19, “electronic memory” as in independent claims 13 and 14 and dependent claims 15-17, this limitation does not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation retrieving, by a computer, a pre-existing three-dimensional representation of a jaw of the patient, in independent claim 13, can be viewed as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation reducing a material quantity output of a manufacturing machine based on the selected material thickness of the platform of the abutment, in independent claims 13 and 14, can be viewed as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation manufacturing, by the manufacturing machine, the abutment based on the generated three-dimensional computer model, in independent claims 13 and 14, can be viewed as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation having a program stored thereon for causing a computer to perform the method of claim 13, as in dependent claim 19, can be viewed as use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 15-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 15 recites “selecting, via the user interface of the computer, a material thickness of a wall of the screw passage within a predetermined range saved in the electronic memory,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 16 recites “selecting, via the user interface of the computer, a material thickness of the base of the abutment within a predetermined range saved in the electronic memory,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 17 recites “selecting, a transition radius within a predetermined range saved in the electronic memory, wherein the transition radius is for: a transition between the coronal platform surface and the base of the abutment; or a transition between the base of the abutment and a wall of the screw passage,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 18 recites “wherein the predetermined range for the material thickness of the platform of the abutment is selected based on: (i) a material to be used for the abutment; or (ii) the designed three-dimensional geometry of the abutment above the selected preparation limit,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 20 recites “wherein the predetermined range for the transition radius is selected based on: (i) a material to be used for the abutment; or (ii) the designed three-dimensional geometry of the abutment above the selected preparation limit,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13-16, 7-10, and 18-19 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOERJES (WO 2007084727 A1), herein BOERJES, in view of KERN (US 20150017604 A1), herein KERN, and in view of HOCHMAN (US 20130189646 A1), herein HOCHMAN.
Claim 3
Claim 13 is rejected because BOERJES teaches retrieving, by a computer, a pre-existing three-dimensional representation of a jaw of the patient ATOBELLI ([00185] “In addition, the digital model may include motion information describing the relative motion of, e.g., an upper and lower jaw throughout one or more jaw motions such as opening and closing the mouth or simulated chewing. Such motion data may, for example, be obtained through a variety of techniques suitable for tracking three-dimensional motion, which may include extrapolation from video data, use of transmitters on the moving jaws, mechanical or electromechanical sensors and/or transmitters, and so forth. Motion data may also be inferred by capturing orientation data for the jaws in a variety of positions.”)
BOERJES also teaches selecting, via a user interface of the computer, a definition of a predetermined preparation limit based on a gingiva configuration which is individual for the patient BOERJES ([0079-0080] “The three-dimensional model may include two arches; the display may include an area for one or more user controls accessible through the touch-screen display to permit positioning the two arches within a virtual articulator. The system may include a user interface displayed on the display and controlled by the computer. The user interface may be accessible through the touch-screen. A system disclosed herein includes: a digital dental impression that may include three-dimensional digital surface data for one or more intraoral structures, the digital dental impression may be captured using a three-dimensional intraoral scanning device and stored in a computer readable medium; a first computer may be configured to render the digital dental impression from a point of view; and a second computer at a remote location may be configure to simultaneously render the digital dental impression from the point of view.”)
BOERJES also teaches designing, by the computer, a three-dimensional geometry of the abutment above the selected preparation limit BOERJES ([0078] “The user controls may include a control to define a cementation void, a control to define a margin line, a control to infer a margin line from the three dimensional representation, a control to recess a region of the three-dimensional representation below a margin line, a control to virtually fit a dental restoration to a prepared tooth surface, include a virtual dental articulator, or include a tool to design a dental restoration fitted to the surface within the mouth of the dental patient.”)
BOERJES also teaches defining, by the computer, an emergence profile of the abutment BOERJES ([00190] “In one aspect, quality control may include real time feedback during a scan, or between successive scans. The feedback_ may be rendered with suitable visualizations on a display to permit immediate observation and correction by a dentist. Thus it will be appreciate that, while depicted in Fig. 4 as a post-scanning operation, quality control may be implemented at any time in a digital dentistry process, or throughout the entire process. Real time feedback may include for example, textual annotations identifying teeth as they are recognized within a scan, and providing one or more dimensions of a tooth, or an analysis of contour, clearance relative to adjacent teeth, or a position of the tooth relative to other teeth or relative to a global coordinate system. By providing this information in real time within the context of a single dental visit, treatment may be generally improved by reducing or eliminating a need for follow up scans.”)
BOERJES also teaches selecting, via the user interface of the computer, a material thickness of a platform of the abutment starting from the defined emergence profile within a predetermined range saved in an electronic memory BOERJES ([00192] “user interface may provide a number interactive, three-dimensional tools such as markup tools that a dentist or other dental professional may use to measure, mark, annotate, or otherwise manipulate a digital model to evaluate suitability for subsequent processing and the 30 creation of a physical dental object such as a restoration.”) See also BOERJES ([00194] “A dental laboratory may inspect a prepared surface to ensure that a restoration can be fit to the prepared surface, or that there is adequate space (especially thickness) for a restoration or other dental object. The dental laboratory may also evaluate color and suggest shade matching for a dentist. The dental laboratory may request manual marking of a margin by a dentist where the margin is not visible on a prepared tooth surface.”) See also BOERJES ([00182] “the interface may control scanning, marking or annotation of scanned models, case planning, access to databases of patient records and dental data, preparation of prescriptions, analysis of dentition, scheduling, management of patient data, communications with remote fabrication facilities, and so forth.”) See also BOERJES ([0015] “The three-dimensional representation may include a digital surface representation of the tooth. Fabricating the dental restoration may include fabricating the dental restoration in an in-house laboratory in a dentist's office. The method may further include fabricating an opposing arch for an arch including the tooth, the opposing arch including a die spacer having a predetermined thickness.”)
BOERJES also teaches generating, by the computer, a three-dimensional computer model having the selected material thickness of the platform of the abutment BOERJES ([0055] “computer program product disclosed herein includes computer executable code embodied in a computer readable medium that, when executed on one or more computer devices, performs the steps of: acquiring a three-dimensional representation of one or more intraoral structures that may include at least one tooth prepared for a dental restoration; analyzing the three-dimensional representation; generating a feedback signal, the feedback signal may represent the analysis of the three-dimensional representation; and outputting the feedback signal to a dentist.”)
BOERJES also teaches reducing a material quantity output of a manufacturing machine based on the selected material thickness of the platform of the abutment BOERJES ([00206] “The die spacer may be virtually added to a digital model of a prepared surface to achieve a similar effect with a restoration that is to be directly fabricated from the digital model, or an interim component such as a fabricated cast of a dental impression used to create the restoration. Similarly, where a cast dental model is to be fabricated from a digital model, the die spacer may be added to appropriate regions of the prepared surface and any other suitable surfaces to remove or reduce the need for use of die spacers in subsequent fabrication steps.”)
BOERJES also teaches manufacturing, by the manufacturing machine, the abutment based on the generated three-dimensional computer model BOERJES ([0125] “Described are a wide array of systems and methods for digital dentistry. However, it will be appreciated that the inventive concepts disclosed herein are not limited to the specific embodiments disclosed. For example, the general techniques disclosed herein may be usefully employed in any environment where precise, three-dimensional data might be usefully captured and processed, including orthopedics, digital animation, and customized manufacturing. In addition, while numerous variations and implementations of digital dentistry techniques are described, it will be appreciated that other combinations of the specific scanning, processing, and manufacturing techniques described herein may be used, and that such variations are intended to fall within the scope of this disclosure.”)
BOERJES does not explicitly teach wherein: the abutment includes a base, a connecting structure for connecting the abutment to the pin-shaped dental implant.
However, KERN teaches wherein: the abutment includes a base, a connecting structure for connecting the abutment to the pin-shaped dental implant KERN ([0025] “A configuration of the top piece with a pin-shaped dental implant, which supports platform switching, is to be preferred. The top piece and the dental implant are formed especially for an individual tooth implant, or as an individual tooth implant.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of KERN with BOERJES as the references deal with producing a three-dimensional computer model of a patient-individual abutment specific for a patient for a dental implant by means of a computer. KERN would modify BOERJES wherein the abutment includes a base, a connecting structure for connecting the abutment to the pin-shaped dental implant. The benefits of doing so improves the growth of the cells and reduces the danger of a bacterial infection of the dental implant. (KERN [0013]).
The combination of BOERJES and KERN does not explicitly teaches a coronal platform surface of the platform of the abutment for supporting a prosthetic fitting.
However, HOCHMAN teaches a coronal platform surface of the platform of the abutment for supporting a prosthetic fitting HOCHMAN ([0081-0082] “The spatial relationship of soft tissue gingival socket is recorded relative to the temporary connection post that is rigidly connected to and coaxial with the dental implant, the temporary post extends through and above ( coronal) in the hollow shell. The connection post is imbued with distinct identification and orientation indications upon the connection post. The markings may be of a design of physical markings, such as indents, detents, internal or external tabs or wings and/or visual markings, laser etching, decals, colored markings or other means of recording spatial orientation of the connection post and its relationship to the residual soft tissue gingival socket. The markings will also code for the physical shape and dimensions of the connection post selected for use. A variety of connection posts are available with different lengths, widths, shapes and diameters in three dimensions of space. The residual soft tissue socket spatial relation relative to the immediate dental implant can be recorded by a variety of means, not limited to, physical dental impressions, CAD/CAM, Digital Impressions, X-Ray computer tomography or other means (digital or physical) to make record of dental casts. This relationship between the residual soft tissue gingival socket relative to the underlying spatial position of the dental implant and is recorded using a spatial referencing system in the X, Y and Z, i.e. horizontal, vertical and transverse planes. Upon recording the spatial relation of the dental implant to the residual soft tissue gingival socket a variety of temporary and permanent prosthetic components can be fabricated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of HOCHMAN with BOERJES and as the references deal with producing a three-dimensional computer model of a patient-individual abutment specific for a patient for a dental implant by means of a computer. HOCHMAN would modify BOERJES and KERN wherein a coronal platform surface of the platform of the abutment for supporting a prosthetic fitting. The benefits of doing so enable The shell engages against the soft tissue socket without gaps and without requiring alignment between the shell and implant axes. (HOCHMAN [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected because BOERJES teaches performing, by the computer, a transformation to obtain a three-dimensional finish computer model from the three-dimensional start computer model BOERJES ([Abstract] “The systems and methods disclosed herein employ a scanning system for capturing highly detailed digital dental models. These models may be used within a dentist's office for a wide array of dental functions including quality control, restoration, design, and fitting. These models may also, or instead, be transmitted to dental laboratories that may, alone or in collaboration with the originating dentist or other dental professionals, transform the digital model into a physical realization of a dental hardware item.”)
BOERJES also teaches selecting, via a user interface of the computer, a material thickness of a platform of the abutment starting from the defined emergence profile within a predetermined range saved in an electronic memory BOERJES ([00192] “user interface may provide a number interactive, three-dimensional tools such as markup tools that a dentist or other dental professional may use to measure, mark, annotate, or otherwise manipulate a digital model to evaluate suitability for subsequent processing and the 30 creation of a physical dental object such as a restoration.”) See also BOERJES ([00194] “A dental laboratory may inspect a prepared surface to ensure that a restoration can be fit to the prepared surface, or that there is adequate space (especially thickness) for a restoration or other dental object. The dental laboratory may also evaluate color and suggest shade matching for a dentist. The dental laboratory may request manual marking of a margin by a dentist where the margin is not visible on a prepared tooth surface.”) See also BOERJES ([00182] “the interface may control scanning, marking or annotation of scanned models, case planning, access to databases of patient records and dental data, preparation of prescriptions, analysis of dentition, scheduling, management of patient data, communications with remote fabrication facilities, and so forth.”) See also BOERJES ([0015] “The three-dimensional representation may include a digital surface representation of the tooth. Fabricating the dental restoration may include fabricating the dental restoration in an in-house laboratory in a dentist's office. The method may further include fabricating an opposing arch for an arch including the tooth, the opposing arch including a die spacer having a predetermined thickness.”)
BOERJES also teaches reducing a material quantity output of a manufacturing machine based on the selected material thickness of the platform of the abutment BOERJES ([00206] “The die spacer may be virtually added to a digital model of a prepared surface to achieve a similar effect with a restoration that is to be directly fabricated from the digital model, or an interim component such as a fabricated cast of a dental impression used to create the restoration. Similarly, where a cast dental model is to be fabricated from a digital model, the die spacer may be added to appropriate regions of the prepared surface and any other suitable surfaces to remove or reduce the need for use of die spacers in subsequent fabrication steps.”)
BOERJES also teaches manufacturing, by the manufacturing machine, the abutment based on the generated three-dimensional finish computer model BOERJES ([0125] “Described are a wide array of systems and methods for digital dentistry. However, it will be appreciated that the inventive concepts disclosed herein are not limited to the specific embodiments disclosed. For example, the general techniques disclosed herein may be usefully employed in any environment where precise, three-dimensional data might be usefully captured and processed, including orthopedics, digital animation, and customized manufacturing. In addition, while numerous variations and implementations of digital dentistry techniques are described, it will be appreciated that other combinations of the specific scanning, processing, and manufacturing techniques described herein may be used, and that such variations are intended to fall within the scope of this disclosure.”)
BOERJES does not explicitly teach wherein the abutment includes a base, a connecting structure for connecting the abutment to the pin-shaped dental implant or the screw passage for fixing the abutment to the pin-shaped dental implant.
However, KERN teaches wherein: the abutment includes a base, a connecting structure for connecting the abutment to the pin-shaped dental implant KERN ([Column 3 | Lines 12-15] “A configuration of the top piece with a pin-shaped dental implant, which supports platform switching, is to be preferred. The top piece and the dental implant are formed especially for an individual tooth implant, or as an individual tooth implant.”)
KERN also teaches the screw passage for fixing the abutment to the pin-shaped dental implant KERN ([Column 3 | Lines 3-7] “The platform structure around the retention pin is preferably formed as a setting shoulder for the mesostructure. As is known, the top piece can have an axially arranged bore hole, which extends through the connection pin and which allows the screwing of the top piece on the dental implant.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of KERN with BOERJES as the references deal with producing a three-dimensional computer model of a patient-individual abutment specific for a patient for a dental implant by means of a computer. KERN would modify BOERJES wherein the screw passage for fixing the abutment to the pin-shaped dental implant. The benefits of doing so improves the growth of the cells and reduces the danger of a bacterial infection of the dental implant. (KERN [0013]).
The combination of BOERJES and KERN does not explicitly teach a coronal platform surface of the platform of the abutment for supporting a prosthetic fitting and a plate configuration of the coronal platform surface is below the selected preparation limit for the designed three-dimensional geometry of the platform or generating, by a computer, a three-dimensional start computer model of the abutment such that a region extending radially between a screw passage of the abutment and an emergence profile of the abutment is represented as being filled with material.
However, HOCHMAN teaches a coronal platform surface of the platform of the abutment for supporting a prosthetic fitting HOCHMAN ([0081-0082] “The spatial relationship of soft tissue gingival socket is recorded relative to the temporary connection post that is rigidly connected to and coaxial with the dental implant, the temporary post extends through and above ( coronal) in the hollow shell. The connection post is imbued with distinct identification and orientation indications upon the connection post. The markings may be of a design of physical markings, such as indents, detents, internal or external tabs or wings and/or visual markings, laser etching, decals, colored markings or other means of recording spatial orientation of the connection post and its relationship to the residual soft tissue gingival socket. The markings will also code for the physical shape and dimensions of the connection post selected for use. A variety of connection posts are available with different lengths, widths, shapes and diameters in three dimensions of space. The residual soft tissue socket spatial relation relative to the immediate dental implant can be recorded by a variety of means, not limited to, physical dental impressions, CAD/CAM, Digital Impressions, X-Ray computer tomography or other means (digital or physical) to make record of dental casts. This relationship between the residual soft tissue gingival socket relative to the underlying spatial position of the dental implant and is recorded using a spatial referencing system in the X, Y and Z, i.e. horizontal, vertical and transverse planes. Upon recording the spatial relation of the dental implant to the residual soft tissue gingival socket a variety of temporary and permanent prosthetic components can be fabricated.”)
HOCHMAN also teaches a plate configuration of the coronal platform surface is below the selected preparation limit for the designed three-dimensional geometry of the platform HOCHMAN ([0014] “general deficiency of being able to relate the spatial position of the residual soft tissue gingival socket complicates the ability to fabricate a dental prosthesis from prefabricate "stock" components. The need to utilize customized components to compensate for the disharmony is important to recognize. The independent spatial relationship of the underlying bone ( or dental implant) to the overlying gingival tissues becomes difficult or impossible to relate to one another once the tooth is removed. To overcome these discrepancies, the invention will describe a method and device to accurately record the three-dimensional position of the soft tissue gingival socket after a tooth has been removed. It will also describe a method to relate this soft tissue gingival socket to a dental implant placed within the alveolar bone of an immediate extraction/implant surgical placement procedure. Additionally, the invention will describe means to relate the residual soft tissue socket of the gingiva to the position of the extracted clinical crown prior to removal and the occlusal contacts of that crown to the adjacent teeth as well as the opposing teeth, prior to removal. All of the defined relationships are critical to enable the successful fabrication of a dental implant prosthesis.”) See also HOCHMAN ([0134] “The connection post 40 is selected for the proper vertical height so that the connection post extends beyond the coronal surface of the hollow shell 10. The connection post can be screwed retained or mechanically retained by a frictional interference into the internal threaded portion of the root-form implant 30. A vertical stop 40h on the connection post 40 (see FIG. 22) will define a vertical relationship of the post and root form implant 30 relative to the hollow shell 10 and residual soft tissue gingival socket 100. Distinct markings on the connection post coronal section provide the orientation, vertical, horizontal and transverse of the position and dimensional specifications of the connection post. The connection post directly provides the spatial position of the rootform implant contained within the bone relative to the residual soft tissue gingival socket.”)
HOCHMAN also teaches generating, by a computer, a three-dimensional start computer model of the abutment such that a region extending radially between a screw passage of the abutment and an emergence profile of the abutment is represented as being filled with material HOCHMAN ([0077] “The invention also includes a dental implant having an implant axis and being adapted for placement in the bone socket, a temporary post rigidly connected to and coaxial with the dental implant, the temporary post extending in the interior volume of the hollow shell, and either markings on the post and/or a luting compound filling the interior volume between the shell and the temporary post and setting solid for fixing the shell to the dental implant with no other connection between the shell and the implant so that the outer surface of the shell engages against the soft tissue socket without gaps and without requiring alignment of the shell axis to the implant axes.”) See also HOCHMAN ([0082] “The residual soft tissue socket spatial relation relative to the immediate dental implant can be recorded by a variety of means, not limited to, physical dental impressions, CAD/CAM, Digital Impressions, X-Ray computer tomography or other means (digital or physical) to make record of dental casts. This relationship between the residual soft tissue gingival socket relative to the underlying spatial position of the dental implant and is recorded using a spatial referencing system in the X, Y and Z, i.e. horizontal, vertical and transverse planes. Upon recording the spatial relation of the dental implant to the residual soft tissue gingival socket a variety of temporary and permanent prosthetic components can be fabricated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of HOCHMAN with BOERJES and as the references deal with producing a three-dimensional computer model of a patient-individual abutment specific for a patient for a dental implant by means of a computer. HOCHMAN would modify BOERJES and KERN wherein generating, by a computer, a three-dimensional start computer model of the abutment such that a region extending radially between a screw passage of the abutment and an emergence profile of the abutment is represented as being filled with material. The benefits of doing so enable The shell engages against the soft tissue socket without gaps and without requiring alignment between the shell and implant axes. (HOCHMAN [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected because the combination of BOERJES, KERN, and HOCHMAN teaches the claim 13 limitations.
BOERJES teaches selecting, via a user interface of the computer, a material thickness of a wall of the screw passage within a predetermined range saved in an electronic memory BOERJES ([00186] “Using various CAD modeling tools, the restoration may be further refined, such as by shaping side walls of the restoration, adding visually appealing and/or functional cusps to the occlusal surfaces, and so forth. Thus in one aspect there is disclosed herein a method for determining one or more occlusal surfaces of a dental restoration using dynamic three-dimensional data acquired during a scan. The method may include obtaining a three dimensional model of two opposing arches of a patient's dentition, obtaining excursion data for the two opposing arches, preparing a tooth surface of the dentition for a restoration, and determining an occlusal surface of the restoration using the excursion data and the three-dimensional model.”) See also BOERJES ([00192] “user interface may provide a number interactive, three-dimensional tools such as markup tools that a dentist or other dental professional may use to measure, mark, annotate, or otherwise manipulate a digital model to evaluate suitability for subsequent processing and the 30 creation of a physical dental object such as a restoration.”) See also BOERJES ([00194] “A dental laboratory may inspect a prepared surface to ensure that a restoration can be fit to the prepared surface, or that there is adequate space (especially thickness) for a restoration or other dental object. The dental laboratory may also evaluate color and suggest shade matching for a dentist. The dental laboratory may request manual marking of a margin by a dentist where the margin is not visible on a prepared tooth surface.”) See also BOERJES ([00182] “the interface may control scanning, marking or annotation of scanned models, case planning, access to databases of patient records and dental data, preparation of prescriptions, analysis of dentition, scheduling, management of patient data, communications with remote fabrication facilities, and so forth.”) See also BOERJES ([0015] “The three-dimensional representation may include a digital surface representation of the tooth. Fabricating the dental restoration may include fabricating the dental restoration in an in-house laboratory in a dentist's office. The method may further include fabricating an opposing arch for an arch including the tooth, the opposing arch including a die spacer having a predetermined thickness.”) See also BOERJES ([0015] “The three-dimensional representation may include a digital surface representation of the tooth. Fabricating the dental restoration may include fabricating the dental restoration in an in-house laboratory in a dentist's office. The method may further include fabricating an opposing arch for an arch including the tooth, the opposing arch including a die spacer having a predetermined thickness.”) Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected because the combination of BOERJES, KERN, and HOCHMAN teaches the claim 13 limitations.
BOERJES teaches selecting, via the user interface of the computer, a material thickness of the base of the abutment within a predetermined range saved in the electronic memory BOERJES ([00194] “As shown in step 410, quality control may include remote quality control. For example, after completing a scan, a dental office may transmit a digital model to a dental laboratory or a fabrication facility f~! evaluation of adequacy of the scan. As a significant advantage, the recipient, such as a dental laboratory may provide immediate feedback to a dentist while a dental patient is still in the dental office, or still in a dentist's chair at a dental office, thus avoiding a need to schedule repeat visits for additional surface scanning or surface preparation. A dental laboratory may inspect a prepared surface to ensure that a restoration can be fit to the prepared surface, or that there is adequate space (especially thickness) for a restoration or other dental object. The dental laboratory may also evaluate color and suggest shade matching for a dentist. The dental laboratory may request manual marking of a margin by a dentist where the margin is not visible on a prepared tooth surface. The dental laboratory may also apply separate standards for data quality (density, accuracy, surface continuity, feature detail, etc.), and may request additional or new scan data consistent with its own specifications. The dental office may transmit a case plan prior to ( or during) transmission of a scan, which may permit more detailed analysis of the scan data by the recipient. Thus, for example, a dental laboratory may evaluate suitability of the scan and/or surface preparation for a type of restoration and any prescribed components (e.g., full ceramic, porcelain-fused-to metal, etc.). Where the dental laboratory can quickly generate an accurate or rough model for a restoration or other dental object according to any fabrication or end use constraints, the rough model may, in digital form, be virtually fit to the prepared surface, and feedback may be provided to a dentist such as an identification of regions requiring further reduction.”) Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected because the combination of BOERJES, KERN, and HOCHMAN teaches the claim 13 limitations.
BOERJES teaches wherein the predetermined range for the material thickness of the platform of the abutment is selected based on: (i) a material to be used for the abutment; or (ii) the designed three-dimensional geometry of the abutment above the selected preparation limit BOERJES ([00181] “Within each main area of top-level navigation, the interface 300 may provide a number of tabs, such as the scanning tab 310, the prescription tab 312, and the status tab 314 depicted in Fig. 3. The scanning tab 310 may, for example, invoke an interface for controlling operation of an image capture system 100 such as that 5 described above in reference to Fig. 1. The prescription tab 312 may, for example, invoke an interface that permits specification of a restoration or other dental object, including a specification of teeth being treated, treatment type, manufacturer, and details of the dental object including color, material, texture, and so forth. The interface of the prescription tab 312 may also include tools for transmitting a prescription, along with any three-dimensi9nal data obtained from scans of a patient, to a dental laboratory, dental data center, rapid manufacturing facility, or the like.”) See also BOERJES ([Figure 3].) Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
PNG
media_image1.png
685
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
BOERJES Figure 3 Reference
.
Claim 19
Claim 19 is rejected because it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 13 with similar limitations to claim 13, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 13.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOERJES, in further view of KERN (WO 2007084727 A1), herein BOERJES, in view of HOCHMAN, and in further view of YAMAMOTO (US 20190125490 A1), herein YAMAMOTO.
Claim 17 is rejected because the combination of BOERJES, KERN, and HOCHMAN teaches the claim 13 limitations.
The combination of BOERJES, KERN, and HOCHMAN does not explicitly teach selecting, a transition radius within a predetermined range saved in the electronic memory, wherein the transition radius is for: a transition between the coronal platform surface and the base of the abutment; or a transition between the base of the abutment and a wall of the screw passage.
However, YAMAMOTO teaches selecting, a transition radius within a predetermined range saved in the electronic memory, wherein the transition radius is for: a transition between the coronal platform surface and the base of the abutment; or a transition between the base of the abutment and a wall of the screw YAMAMOTO ([0125-0128] “In the manufacturing system, the calculating the intersection point may include [0126] comparing a first intersection point and a second intersection point, where the first intersection point is calculated by extending the crown-side temporary finish line while maintaining the curvature of the temporary finish line near the crown-side cutting reference point and extending the root-side temporary finish line while maintaining the curvature of the temporary finish line near the root-side cutting reference point, and the second intersection point is calculated by extending the crown-side temporary finish line while maintaining a change ratio of the curvature of the temporary finish line near the crown-side cutting reference point and extending the root-side temporary finish line while maintaining a change ratio of the curvature of the temporary finish line near the root-side cutting reference point, and [0127] calculating a point at an outermost position from a tooth crown out of the first intersection point and the second intersection point as the intersection point at which the extended crown-side temporary finish line intersects with the extended root-side temporary finish line. [0128] In the manufacturing system, a distance between the multiple adjacent points of the temporary finish line which is used for estimating and restoring the finish line may be within a range of 0.002 mm to 1 mm.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([Figure 11].)
PNG
media_image2.png
700
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
YAMAMOTO Figure 11 Reference
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of YAMAMOTO with BOERJES, KERN, and HOCHMAN as the references deal with producing a three-dimensional computer model of a patient-individual abutment specific for a patient for a dental implant by means of a computer. YAMAMOTO would modify BOERJES, KERN, and HOCHMAN wherein selecting, a transition radius within a predetermined range saved in the electronic memory, wherein the transition radius is for: a transition between the coronal platform surface and the base of the abutment; or a transition between the base of the abutment and a wall of the screw. The benefits of doing provides the ability of estimating and restoring an abutment tooth or an abutment tooth form changed by scanning and the program thereof of the present invention, the abutment tooth or abutment tooth form impaired by scanning can be estimated and restored. (YAMAMOTO [0015]). Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Clam 20
Claim 20 is rejected because the combination of BOERJES, KERN, HOCHMAN, and YAMAMOTO teaches the claim 17 limitations.
The combination of BOERJES, KERN, and HOCHMAN does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined range for the transition radius is selected based on: (i) a material to be used for the abutment; or (ii) the designed three- dimensional geometry of the abutment above the selected preparation limit.
However, YAMAMOTO teaches wherein the predetermined range for the transition radius is selected based on: (i) a material to be used for the abutment; or (ii) the designed three- dimensional geometry of the abutment above the selected preparation limit YAMAMOTO ([0145-0146] “At the scanning step ST2, the shape of the abutment tooth which is formed at the abutment tooth forming step STl is scanned by a scanning device etc. For example, the scanning of the abutment tooth may be performed by fabricating an abutment tooth model and scanning the abutment tooth model, or by directly scanning the abutment tooth in the oral cavity. The abutment tooth model is a model acquired by imprinting a formed abutment tooth with an impression material to fabricate a female mold of a patient's abutment tooth and surrounding gingiva, pouring plaster etc. into the female mold, taking out the cured plaster to duplicate a site requiring treatment by the prosthetic device in the patient's oral cavity. In the first embodiment, an abutment tooth model is fabricated and the abutment tooth model is scanned. FIG. 2A shows a photograph of an exemplary abutment tooth model 10. FIG. 2B shows an enlarged view of an edge portion Zl of the abutment tooth model 10 of FIG. 2A. FIG. 3A shows exemplary scan data 20 which is acquired by scanning the abutment tooth model 10 of FIG. 2A. FIG. 3B shows an enlarged view of an edge portion Z2 of the scan data 20 of FIG. 3A. As shown in FIGS. 2A and 3A, at the scanning step ST2, the abutment tooth model 10 shown in FIG. 2Ais scanned by a scanning device to acquire the scanning data 20 as STL data shown in FIG. 3A. The edge portion Zl of the abutment tooth model 10 shown in FIG. 2A is compared with the edge portion Zl of the scan data 20 shown in FIG. 3A. As shown in FIGS. 2B and 3B, a form originally possessed by a finish line portion of the abutment tooth model 10 shown in FIG. 2B is obviously impaired in a finish line portion of the scan data 20 shown in FIG. 3B.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of YAMAMOTO with BOERJES, KERN, and HOCHMAN as the references deal with producing a three-dimensional computer model of a patient-individual abutment specific for a patient for a dental implant by means of a computer. YAMAMOTO would modify BOERJES, KERN, and HOCHMAN wherein the predetermined range for the transition radius is selected based on: (i) a material to be used for the abutment; or (ii) the designed three- dimensional geometry of the abutment above the selected preparation limit. The benefits of doing provides the ability of estimating and restoring an abutment tooth or an abutment tooth form changed by scanning and the program thereof of the present invention, the abutment tooth or abutment tooth form impaired by scanning can be estimated and restored. (YAMAMOTO [0015]). Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN K VU whose telephone number is (703)756-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. 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.K.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186