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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the
specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It
is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire
reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims &
only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give
the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure.
Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was
referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is
broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are
provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the
examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the
intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites a “method” which is a process.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple abstract ideas. The claim specifically recites multiple mental processes.
detecting, from a digital model of a patient's dentition, one or more attachments on the patient's dentition;This describes a mental process which entails an observation of attachments.copying at least a first portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition to create a first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition;This describes a mental process which entails the action of copying a model which can be done with the aid of pen and paper.
performing a user-input process on the digital model of the patient's dentition;This describes a mental process which entails the actions of observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion of reviewing and/or changing aspects of the model or attachments.
performing, in parallel with the performance of the user-input process, the steps of:modifying the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition, and segmenting the modified first copy of the digital model; and
This describes a mental process which entails modifying and segmenting a first copy of the model which can be done in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper.segmenting the digital model of the patient's dentition based on the segmentation of the modified first copy of the digital model.
This describes a mental process which entails comparing both dentition models for further segmentation. This is something that can be done in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to a mental process, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises an upper jaw of the patient.
Claim 2 just defines what is included in the dentition model which falls under data gathering activity and is also rejected for the same reasons from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 3
The method of claim 1, further comprising copying a second portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition to create a second copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition, wherein modifying the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition also includes modifying the second copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition, further wherein segmenting the digital model of the patient's dentition is based on the segmentation of the modified first copy of the digital model and the modified second copy of the digital model.
Claim 3 further describes modification and copying parts of the models. Which is a mental process that can be done in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding Claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the user-input process on the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises reviewing and/or changing the detected one or more or attachments.
Claim 4 further describes performing reviews which fall under a mental process of an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Regarding Claim 5
The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises modifying the first copy to remove the detected one or more attachments.
Claim 5 further describes performing more mental process of modifying and copying that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding Claim 6
The method of claim 1, further comprising repeating the steps of modifying the first copy and segmenting the modified first copy if the user-input process changes the detected one or more or attachments.
Claim 6 further describes repeating previous processes which are mental processes which can be done with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding Claim 7
The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting the segmented digital model of a patient's dentition.
Claim 7 further the method of output which is just post solution activity and does not remedy the abstract ideas from the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claim 8
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a treatment plan from the segmented digital model of a patient's dentition.
Claim 8 further describes a mental process of generating a treatment plan from observation and opinion of the digital model.
Regarding Claim 9
A method comprising: detecting, from a digital model of a patient's dentition, one or more attachments on the patient's dentition; copying a first portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition to create a first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition; copying a second portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition to create a second copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition; performing a user-input process on the digital model of the patient's dentition, comprising reviewing and/or changing the detected one or more or attachments; performing, in parallel with the performance of the user-input process, the steps of: modifying either or both the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition and the second copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition to remove the detected one or more attachments, and segmenting the modified first copy of the digital model and the modified second copy of the digital model; repeating the steps of modifying the first copy and the second copy and segmenting the modified first copy and the modified second copy if the user-input process changes the detected one or more or attachments; and segmenting the digital model of a patient's dentition based on the segmentation of the modified first copy of the digital model and the modified second copy of the digital model.
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 is a combination of claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 except that uses slightly different language of requiring both copies. This does not resolve the abstract mental processes expressed above.
Regarding Claims 10-18
These claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons as claims 1-8. These claims are very similar to claims 1-8 except that they are directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” instead of a “method”.
Regarding Claims 19-25
These claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons as claims 1-8. These claims are very similar to claims 1-8 except that they are directed to a “system” instead of a “method”.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUO et al. CA 2881620 A1 (2014) [herein “KUO”], CUNLIFFE et al. US 20190008446 A1 (2019) [herein “CUNLIFFE”], and JONES et al. US 7063532 B1 (2006) [herein “JONES”].
Regarding Claim 1, KUO teaches
A method comprising: detecting, from a digital model of a patient's dentition, one or more attachments on the patient's dentition;
“The current digital dental model is created based a new digital dental model that includes the representation of the set of physical teeth without including the current dental appliance.”. (Abstract).
“…the system can detect the remaining portions connected to the selected region which can include, for example, the bracket or the bracket and the cement. “. (0052).
This shows being able to detect from a dentition model, attachments that are used for dental appliances.
performing, in parallel with the performance of the user-input process, the steps of: modifying the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition, and segmenting the modified first copy of the digital model; and
“Many of these automated segmentation techniques are even more useful and efficient when used in conjunction with human-assisted techniques. For example, techniques that rely on the identification of the interproximal or gingival margins function more quickly and effectively when a human user first highlight the interproximal or gingival cusps in a graphical representation of the dentition model.”. (0081).
“In many instances, the computer creates proposals for segmenting the dentition model and then allows the user to select the best alternative. “. (0082).
This shows concurrently being able to modify or review the model when copying or segmenting based on user input.
KUO does not explicitly teach but CUNLIFFE teaches
copying at least a first portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition to create a first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition;
“A method for estimating gum line changes, consistent with the present invention, includes receiving a digital 3D model of teeth and gingiva, and segmenting the digital 3D model to digitally identify the teeth from the gingiva and generate a gingiva segmented digital 3D model.”. (004).
“Segmenting the teeth from the gingiva for steps 26 and 28 involves detecting the gum line in the 3D scans to digitally identify the boundary between the teeth and gingiva to generate a gingiva segmented digital 3D model. This digital identification for segmentation can include, for example, digitally separating the teeth from the gingiva, or using a curve or other indicia on the digital 3D model to distinguish between the teeth from the gum.”. (0022).
This shows segmenting and creating a copy of a dentition model.
performing a user-input process on the digital model of the patient's dentition;
“In some cases, a software interface can be presented in order for a user to perform alignment, or a portion of it, manually.”. (0021).
This shows the user being able to input and modify the dentition model.
KUO and CUNLIFFE do not explicitly teach but Jones teaches
segmenting the digital model of the patient's dentition based on the segmentation of the modified first copy of the digital model.
“A computer or other digital circuitry is used to assist in the creation of a digital model of an individual component, such as a tooth or gum tissue, in a patient's dentition. The computer receives a data set that forms a three-dimensional (3D) representation of the patient's dentition, applies a test to the data set to identify data elements that represent portions of the individual component, and creates a digital model of the individual component based upon the identified data elements.”. (Abstract).
“In many instances, the computer creates proposals for segmenting the dentition model and then allows the user to select the best alternative. For example, one version of the arch curve fitting technique requires the computer to create a candidate catenary or spline curve, which the user is allowed to modify by manipulating the mathematical control parameters. Other techniques involve displaying several surfaces that are candidate cutting surfaces and allowing the user to select the appropriate surfaces.” (0054).This shows segmenting a dentition based on segmented proposed copies of the dentition model.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of CUNLIFFE’s method of copying a dentition model with KUO’s dentition model that can detect dental attachments. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a digital replacement that would alleviate the issues with physical models as stated by KUO “…a technician will have to spend considerable effort manually cleaning up any model made from the impression and manually removing all parts of the current appliance and any distortion and other defects arising from taking the impression. These are just a few examples of why physical impressions are undesirable.”. (0002). Doing so would relieve the issues physical models have by replacing it with a superior digital model.
A PHOSITA would have been further motivated to add JONES method of segmenting a model using a copy of the model. JONES states “The invention relates generally to the fields of dentistry and orthodontics and, more particularly, to subdividing a digital model of a patient's dentition. (2) … Such models are useful, among other things, in developing an orthodontic treatment plan for the patient, as well as in creating one or more orthodontic appliances to implement the treatment plan… (4)”. Combining with KUO teaching of “dental appliances. In particular, it relates to a method and system useable in creating a subsequent dental appliance.BACKGROUND (001)” would lead to an improved method of modeling and detecting attachments in a dentition model.
Regarding Claim 4, KUO teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the user-input process on the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises reviewing and/or changing the detected one or more or attachments.
“Example 110 depicts the patient's set of physical teeth 100 with a set of orthodontic braces 112 attached. The set of braces 112 may include one or more brackets, arch wires, etc. Example 120 depicts the patient's set of physical teeth 100 with dental attachments 122 that are suitable for use with a removable plastic positioning dental appliance, such as an aligner.”. (0024).
“According to another embodiment, the creation is substantially automatic with some human
intervention for clean up and double checking. According to one embodiment, the system is not merely a computer graphics system that a human uses to manually remove digital portions using a digital eraser or to copy digital portions of the current digital dental model 210 (Figures 2h-6h) as a part of creating the new digital dental model…”. (0052).
This shows the user intervening to review or make changes on dental attachments.
Regarding Claim 5, KUO teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises modifying the first copy to remove the detected one or more attachments.
“The current digital dental model is created based a new digital dental model that includes the representation of the set of physical teeth without including the current dental appliance.”. (Abstract).
“For example, the non-superimposed portion can include the current dental appliance 112 and any cement that is used for attaching the current dental appliance 112 to the patient's physical teeth 100 (Figure 1b) … The new digital dental model 220 can be created either by removing the non-superimposed portion of the current digital dental model 210”. (0030).
“… and the system can detect the remaining portions connected to the selected region which can include, for example, the bracket or the bracket and the cement. In this case, the user may only identify and select one point for up to 32 digital teeth on a current digital dental model 210 (Figures 2b-6b).”. (0052).
This shows removing the detected attachments from a dentition.
Regarding Claim 8, KUO teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a treatment plan from the segmented digital model of a patient's dentition.
“Therefore, according to one embodiment, to create a current digital dental model 210 (Figures 2b-6b) when the patient's physical teeth 100 (Figure 1a) are close but not at the desired teeth arrangement, positions of one or more digital teeth in the new digital dental model 220-620 (Figures 2c-6c) may be adjusted to the desired teeth arrangement. Information pertaining to one or more dimensions of the feature or descriptions of the feature can be used to determine how to adjust the positions of the one or more digital teeth in the new digital dental model 220-620 (Figures 2c-6c) … A subsequent dental appliance that is manufactured based on a new digital dental model 220-620 (Figures 2c-6c) adjusted to the desired teeth arrangement can be used to move the physical teeth to the desired teeth arrangement.”. (0045).
“In the event that treatment is a combination between braces and removable aligners, the subsequent device may be a clear removable aligner or series of aligners similar to a retainer, but designed to continue with orthodontic movement of the teeth.”. (0074).
This shows a series of aligners for treatment of teeth alignment.
Claims 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 25 recite substantially the same limitations as claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 except these claims are directed to a “non-transitory computer readable medium” or a “system”. Therefore these, claims are rejected under the same rational as addressed above.
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUO et al. CA 2881620 A1 (2014) [herein “KUO”], CUNLIFFE et al. US 20190008446 A1 (2019) [herein “CUNLIFFE”], JONES et al. US 7063532 B1 (2006) [herein “CUNLIFFE”], and CHEN et al. US 20150335299 A1 (2015) [herein CHEN].
Regarding Claim 2, CHEN teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises an upper jaw of the patient.
“After separating the upper and lower jaws, the sequence of FIG. 10 next estimates the average teeth height for the upper teeth and lower teeth respectively in an estimation step 1006. A simple and quick approach employed in the present invention is, for each tooth in the upper jaw or lower jaw…”. (0085).
“A teeth segmentation step 1604 performs tasks similar to previously described steps 1004 through 1016 of FIG. 10 to obtain a set of segmented teeth for either upper jaw or lower jaw as shown in FIG. 15.”. (0093).
This shows that the dentition includes the upper jaw and that it is separated into a portion.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of CHEN’s method of copying a dentition model with multiple copies with the combination of KUO-CUNLIFFE-JONES’s dentition model that can detect dental attachments. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a digital replacement that would alleviate the issues with physical models as stated by KUO “…a technician will have to spend considerable effort manually cleaning up any model made from the impression and manually removing all parts of the current appliance and any distortion and other defects arising from taking the impression. These are just a few examples of why physical impressions are undesirable.”. (0002). Doing so would relieve the issues physical models have by replacing it with a superior digital model.
Regarding Claim 3, CHEN teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising copying a second portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition to create a second copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition,
“With this initial processing, the next step is to separate upper and lower jaws in a jaw separation step 1004.”. (0083).
This shows segmenting into copies portions in to sub models from a unified model.
wherein modifying the first copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition also includes modifying the second copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition,
“For the specified jaw, the method estimates average tooth height for teeth within the specified jaw, finds a jaw arch region, detects one or more separation curves between teeth in the jaw arch region, defines an individual tooth sub volume according to the estimated average tooth height and the detected separation curves, segments at least one tooth from within the defined sub-volume...”. (Abstract).
“After separating the upper and lower jaws, the sequence of FIG. 10 next estimates the average teeth height for the upper teeth and lower teeth respectively in an estimation step 1006.”. (0085).
This shows modification of one part includes the other.
further wherein segmenting the digital model of the patient's dentition is based on the segmentation of the modified first copy of the digital model and the modified second copy of the digital model.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“Now referring to FIG. 16 there is shown a flowchart that describes the steps of teeth alignment detection of the present invention.”. (Figure 16 0093).
This shows using the segmented copies to show a final segmentation of the original model.
Claims 11, 12, 19, and 20 recite substantially the same limitations as claims 2 and 3 except these claims are directed to a “non-transitory computer readable medium” or a “system”. Therefore these, claims are rejected under the same rational as addressed above.
Claims 6-7, 15-16, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUO et al. CA 2881620 A1 (2014) [herein “KUO”], CUNLIFFE et al. US 20190008446 A1 (2019) [herein “CUNLIFFE”], JONES et al. US 7063532 B1 (2006) [herein “CUNLIFFE”], and CHEN et al. WO 2018101923 A1 (2018) [herein CHEN SHOUPU].
Regarding Claim 6, CHEN SHOUPU teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising repeating the steps of modifying the first copy and segmenting the modified first copy if the user-input process changes the detected one or more or attachments.
“The method modifies the 3-D digital mesh to generate a digital mesh dentition model by processing the digital mesh and automatically detecting one or more initial bracket positions from the acquired mesh, processing the initial bracket positions to identify bracket areas for braces that lie against tooth surfaces, identifying one or more brace wires extending between brackets, removing one or more brackets and one or more wires from the dentition model, and forming a reconstructed tooth surface within the digital mesh dentition model where the one or more brackets have been removed. The modified 3-D digital mesh dentition model is displayed, stored, or transmitted over a network to another computer.”. (Abstract).
“Figures 9A, 9B and 9C show operator interface screens for review and entry of markup instructions for refining tooth mesh segmentation processing according to certain embodiments of the present disclosure.”. (Pg. 9).
“Figure 6A also shows an optional repeat loop that can enable viewer interaction with the intermediate image for refining the results of the automated segmentation processing, for example, using the basic apparatus shown in Figure 1.”. (Pg. 6-7).
“It can be appreciated that different segmentation algorithms can be applied at various stages of automated or manual processing. Final results of segmentation processing can be displayed, stored, and transmitted between computers, such as over a wired or wireless network, for example.”. (Pg. 6-7).
This shows an iterative process where the model is modified and segmented while detecting / removing attachments.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of CHEN SHOUPU’s method of outputting a modification and segmentation that is user informed with the combination of KUO-CUNLIFFE-JONES’s dentition model that can detect dental attachments. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a digital replacement that would alleviate the issues with physical models as stated by KUO “…a technician will have to spend considerable effort manually cleaning up any model made from the impression and manually removing all parts of the current appliance and any distortion and other defects arising from taking the impression. These are just a few examples of why physical impressions are undesirable.”. (0002). Doing so would relieve the issues physical models have by replacing it with a superior digital model.
Regarding Claim 7, CHEN SHOUPU teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting the segmented digital model of a patient's dentition.
“The modified 3-D digital mesh dentition model is displayed, stored, or transmitted over a network to another computer.”. (Abstract).
This shows outputting the segmented model of the dentition.
Claims 15, 16, 23, and 24 recite substantially the same limitations as claims 6 and 7 except these claims are directed to a “non-transitory computer readable medium” or a “system”. Therefore these, claims are rejected under the same rational as addressed above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUO et al. CA 2881620 A1 (2014) [herein “KUO”], CUNLIFFE et al. US 20190008446 A1 (2019) [herein “CUNLIFFE”], JONES et al. US 7063532 B1 (2006) [herein “CUNLIFFE”], CHEN et al. US 20150335299 A1 (2015) [herein CHEN], and CHEN et al. WO 2018101923 A1 (2018) [herein CHEN SHOUPU].
Claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 except this claim requires “modifying either or both the first copy … the second copy… “. Therefore, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as addressed above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LANCELLE et al. US 20190259219 A1. (2019), SACHDEVA et al. US 20150359614 A1 (2015), and RUBBERT et al. US 20020010568 A1 (2002).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NARCISO EDUARDO MONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, REHANA PERVEEN can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/N.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189