Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-12 are directed to a method, which is a process, falling under a statutory category of invention. Claims 13-22 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a manufacture, falling under a statutory category of invention. Claim 23-32 are directed to a system, which is a machine, falling under a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-32 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: The following limitations under broadest reasonable interpretation recite abstract ideas:
The limitation “performing one or more processing steps on a digital model of a patient's dentition” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. Claim 5 recites the one or more processing steps as one or more of: determining collisions, identifying interproximal reductions, and/or modifying a clinical crown. These activities amount to a mental process. For example, determining collisions covers a person mentally observing the model of a patient’s dentition and making a mental judgment on whether or not there is a collision.
The limitation “copying at least a portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition to create a copy the digital model of the patient's dentition” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, copying a model covers a person observing the model and creating another model with a pen and paper.
The limitation “performing one or more user-input processes on the digital model of the patient's dentition” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. Claim 8 recites the one or more processing steps as one or more of: confirming a tooth axis, reviewing tooth position, modifying one or more settings, and reviewing automatically-generated comments. For example, confirming a tooth axis covers a person mentally observing a tooth axis and making a mental judgment on the tooth axis.
The limitation “generating, in parallel with the performance of the one or more user-input processes, a gingiva strip from the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, generating a gingiva strip covers a person mentally observing the model of the patient’s dentition; making a mental judgment on the portion corresponding to the gingiva strip; and creating a model corresponding to the gingiva strip mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “comparing the digital model of the patient's dentition to the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person mentally observing both models and making a mental evaluation or judgment.
The limitation “modifying the digital model of the patient's dentition to include the gingiva strip if the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition is substantially unchanged from the digital model of the patient's dentition” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person making a mental comparison between the models and making changes to a model mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “otherwise generating a second gingiva strip from the digital model of the patient's dentition and modifying the digital model of the patient's dentition to include the second gingiva strip” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person creating a model mentally or with a pen and paper; and making changes to a model mentally or with a pen and paper.
Regarding claim 2: The limitation “wherein performing one or more processing steps on a digital model of the patient's dentition comprises modifying the digital model of the patient's dentition” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person making changes to a model mentally or with a pen and paper.
Regarding claim 3: The limitation “wherein performing one or more processing steps on a digital model of the patient's dentition comprises modifying the digital model of the patient's dentition” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person making changes to a model mentally or with a pen and paper.
Regarding claim 4: The limitation “wherein performing one or more processing steps on a digital model of the patient's dentition comprises modifying the digital model to move one or more teeth” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person making changes to a model mentally or with a pen and paper.
Regarding claim 5: The limitation “wherein performing one or more processing steps on a digital model of the patient's dentition comprises one or more of: determining collisions, identifying interproximal reductions, and/or modifying a clinical crown” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, determining collisions covers a person mentally observing the model of a patient’s dentition and making a mental judgment on whether or not there is a collision.
Regarding claim 6: The limitation “receiving the digital model of a patient's dentition” amounts to an additional element which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 because it amounts to a data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because it amounts to a well-known, routine, and conventional activity which is akin to receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)).”
Regarding claim 7: The limitation “wherein performing one or more user-input processes on the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises receiving one or more user inputs from a user interface” amounts to an additional element which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 because it amounts to a data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B because it amounts to a well-known, routine, and conventional activity which is akin to receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)).”
Regarding claim 8: The limitation “wherein performing one or more user-input processes on the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises one or more of: confirming a tooth axis, reviewing tooth position, modifying one or more settings, and reviewing automatically-generated comments” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, confirming a tooth axis covers a person mentally observing a tooth axis and making a mental judgment on the tooth axis.
Regarding claim 9: The limitation “wherein comparing the digital model of the patient's dentition to the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises comparing a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code for the digital model of the patient's dentition to a CRC code for the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person mentally observing the CRC codes and making a mental evaluation or judgment.
Regarding claim 10: The limitation “calculating the CRC code for the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition while generating the gingiva strip from the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person evaluating and determining a CRC code for a digital model mentally or with a pen and paper. This also covers a mathematical concept involving mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical relationships. Specification para [0185] discloses that a checksum may be used for a CRC code. Calculating a checksum involves mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical relationships.
Regarding claim 11: The limitation “generating a treatment plan from the modified digital model of the patient's dentition” covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers a person mentally observing the modified model and making a judgment on a treatment plan.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 is substantially similar to claims 1-2, 7, and 9 and therefore rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above.
Regarding claim 13: Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above.
Furthermore, the limitation “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform the method” amounts to an additional element which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding claim 23: Claim 23 is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above.
Furthermore, the limitations “one or more processors” and “a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing computer-program instructions, that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform a computer-implemented method” amount to additional elements which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding claims 14-22 and 24-32: Claims 14-22 and 24-32 are substantially similar to claims 2-5 and 7-11 and therefore rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above.
Accordingly, claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 11, 13-15, 18, 19, 22-25, 28, 29, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cunliffe et al. (US20190008446A1), hereinafter Cunliffe.
Regarding claim 1, Cunliffe discloses
performing one or more processing steps on a digital model of a patient's dentition ([0017]: “This method also includes receiving a second 3D scan of the same patient's teeth and gingiva, 3D scan 2, optionally aligning and orienting 3D scan 2 (step 24), and segmenting the teeth from the gingiva in 3D scan 2 to determine the gum line (step 28).”) ([0023]: “Clean the remaining components by dilating them repeatedly then eroding them repeatedly along the original mesh. The components should each contain either tooth or gum, but not both.”) ([0027]: “The registration for steps 30 and 38 involves obtaining segmented digital 3D models of a tooth and gingiva from scanning the tooth at two different times, and rotating and translating the models to align them together for use in detecting changes in the two models. In particular, registration is the process of aligning or obtaining the best fit rotation and translation that needs to be applied to a moving mesh to align with the fixed mesh or generalized to multiple meshes.”) ([0024]: “As shown in FIG. 4, this method receives one or more 3D scans and finds the gum line vertices by extracting the borders of the segmentation of teeth from gingiva (step 50). One of several methods can subsequently be used to identify the center point (step 52). A first option is to identify the middle vertex in the list of gum line vertices. A second option is to re-align the vertices along the principal axes derived using principle component analysis, then find the peak of the curve by finding the point at which the slope changes sign (i.e., zero-valued derivative). A third option is to use anatomical information about the segmented tooth itself to find the midpoint. Such information could include the up-down axis of the tooth or, for cuspids, bicuspids, and molars, the location of the cusp tips.”); and
copying at least a portion of the digital model of the patient's dentition to create a copy the digital model of the patient's dentition ([0004]: “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.”) ([0023]: “Input: a 3D mesh representing a tooth with gums. Output: A subset of the input 3D mesh representing only the tooth.”);
performing one or more user-input processes on the digital model of the patient's dentition ([0015]: “System 10 can also include an electronic display device 16, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) device, and an input device 18 for receiving user commands or other information.”);
generating, in parallel with the performance of the one or more user-input processes, a gingiva strip from the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition ([0017]: “This method also includes receiving a second 3D scan of the same patient's teeth and gingiva, 3D scan 2, optionally aligning and orienting 3D scan 2 (step 24), and segmenting the teeth from the gingiva in 3D scan 2 to determine the gum line (step 28).”) ([0022]: “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.”) ([0023]: “Clean the remaining components by dilating them repeatedly then eroding them repeatedly along the original mesh. The components should each contain either tooth or gum, but not both.”); and
comparing the digital model of the patient's dentition to the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition ([0018]: “That registration of the gingiva segmented 3D scans is used to compare the gum lines (step 32) and generate a gum line change map (step 34). Instead of using a registration algorithm, the 3D scans can be compared in other ways.”) ([0004]: “comparing the gingiva segmented digital 3D model with the digital 3D model of the predicted original location”); and
modifying the digital model of the patient's dentition to include the gingiva strip if the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition is substantially unchanged from the digital model of the patient's dentition, otherwise generating a second gingiva strip from the digital model of the patient's dentition and modifying the digital model of the patient's dentition to include the second gingiva strip ([0023]: “Clean the remaining components by dilating them repeatedly then eroding them repeatedly along the original mesh. The components should each contain either tooth or gum, but not both. The tooth and especially gum may be over-segmented. … Merge the regions representing the tooth into a single mesh.”) ([0019]: “This mapping can be accomplished through use of a registration algorithm (step 38). Using this mapping, the model gum line is mapped to the space of the current teeth and gingiva”) ([0028]: “In an exemplary embodiment, the registration can use the iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm to achieve registration between meshes representing the digital 3D models. One variant of the ICP algorithm includes the steps in Table 2. For the exemplary embodiment, the registration (with reference to the steps in Table 2) uses all points in step 1, Euclidean and point to plane in step 2, equal weights of pairs and rejecting them based on a fixed predetermined threshold (steps 3 and 4), sum of squared distances as the metric in step 5, and minimization is achieved in step 6 using singular value decomposition (SVD) and levenberg marquart methods.”).
Examiner notes that Cunliffe discloses iteratively modifying the gum model until it satisfies a predetermined threshold. Cunliffe discloses rejecting a model and not merging with the base model if it does not satisfy the predetermined threshold. This therefore corresponds to including the gingiva strip in the digital model if the difference is under a certain threshold and otherwise regenerating the gingiva strip.
Regarding claim 2, Cunliffe discloses
wherein performing one or more processing steps on a digital model of the patient's dentition comprises modifying the digital model of the patient's dentition ([0023]: “Clean the remaining components by dilating them repeatedly then eroding them repeatedly along the original mesh. The components should each contain either tooth or gum, but not both. The tooth and especially gum may be over-segmented. … Merge the regions representing the tooth into a single mesh.”) ([0027]: “The registration for steps 30 and 38 involves obtaining segmented digital 3D models of a tooth and gingiva from scanning the tooth at two different times, and rotating and translating the models to align them together for use in detecting changes in the two models. In particular, registration is the process of aligning or obtaining the best fit rotation and translation that needs to be applied to a moving mesh to align with the fixed mesh or generalized to multiple meshes.”).
Regarding claim 3, Cunliffe discloses
wherein performing one or more processing steps on a digital model of the patient's dentition comprises modifying the digital model to add or remove features ([0023]: “Clean the remaining components by dilating them repeatedly then eroding them repeatedly along the original mesh. The components should each contain either tooth or gum, but not both. The tooth and especially gum may be over-segmented. … Merge the regions representing the tooth into a single mesh.”).
Regarding claim 6, Cunliffe discloses
receiving the digital model of a patient's dentition ([0015]: “System 10 includes a processor 20 receiving digital 3D models of teeth”) ([0023]: “Input: a 3D mesh representing a tooth with gums.”).
Regarding claim 7, Cunliffe discloses
wherein performing one or more user-input processes on the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises receiving one or more user inputs from a user interface ([0015]: “System 10 can also include an electronic display device 16, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) device, and an input device 18 for receiving user commands or other information.”).
Regarding claim 8, Cunliffe discloses
wherein performing one or more user-input processes on the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises one or more of: confirming a tooth axis, reviewing tooth position, modifying one or more settings, and reviewing automatically-generated comments ([0017]: “This method also includes receiving a second 3D scan of the same patient's teeth and gingiva, 3D scan 2, optionally aligning and orienting 3D scan 2 (step 24), and segmenting the teeth from the gingiva in 3D scan 2 to determine the gum line (step 28).”) ([0027]: “rotating and translating the models to align them together for use in detecting changes in the two models. In particular, registration is the process of aligning or obtaining the best fit rotation and translation that needs to be applied to a moving mesh to align with the fixed mesh or generalized to multiple meshes.”) ([0024]: “As shown in FIG. 4, this method receives one or more 3D scans and finds the gum line vertices by extracting the borders of the segmentation of teeth from gingiva (step 50). One of several methods can subsequently be used to identify the center point (step 52). A first option is to identify the middle vertex in the list of gum line vertices. A second option is to re-align the vertices along the principal axes derived using principle component analysis, then find the peak of the curve by finding the point at which the slope changes sign (i.e., zero-valued derivative). A third option is to use anatomical information about the segmented tooth itself to find the midpoint. Such information could include the up-down axis of the tooth or, for cuspids, bicuspids, and molars, the location of the cusp tips.”).
Regarding claim 11, Cunliffe discloses
generating a treatment plan from the modified digital model of the patient's dentition ([0014]: “The digital 3D models can be used for varied clinical tasks including treatment planning in diagnostic aides, for example to track gum line changes.”).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above.
Furthermore, Cunliffe discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform the method ([0015]: “System 10 can be implemented with, for example, a desktop, notebook, or tablet computer.”) ([0017]: “The method in the flow diagram of FIG. 3 can be implemented in software or firmware modules, for example, for execution by processor 20, and can alternatively be implemented in hardware modules or a combination of software and hardware.”).
Examiner notes that such hardware devices/systems include a non-transitory computer-readable medium such as a memory storing data/instructions.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above.
Furthermore, Cunliffe discloses
one or more processors; a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing computer-program instructions, that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform a computer-implemented method ([0015]: “System 10 can be implemented with, for example, a desktop, notebook, or tablet computer.”) ([0017]: “The method in the flow diagram of FIG. 3 can be implemented in software or firmware modules, for example, for execution by processor 20, and can alternatively be implemented in hardware modules or a combination of software and hardware.”).
Claims 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 32 are substantially similar to claims 2, 3, 7, 8, and 11 and therefore rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 16, 17, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunliffe in view of Makarenkova et al. (US20200004402A1), hereinafter Makarenkova.
Regarding claim 4, Cunliffe does not explicitly disclose moving one or more teeth.
However, Makarenkova teaches modifying a digital model of a patient’s dentition by moving one or more teeth ([0010]: “The digital model of the subject's dentition may include a 3D surface (or in some variations surface and volumetric) model of the subject's upper and/or lower arch, including teeth and in some variations gingiva (e.g., particularly the portion of gingiva around the teeth). The 3D model may be segmented into individual teeth that may be separately selected and/or moved by the user or system. The system or method may store user inputs and/or generate user output, e.g., modifications to the display, based on user selections from the controls and the processing by the system.”) ([0065]: “The computer system can then determine the appropriate intermediate stages that can be used to move the teeth from the initial teeth position to the final teeth position.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Makarenkova on modifying a digital model of a patient’s dentition by moving one or more teeth with the teachings from Cunliffe on modifying a digital model of a patient’s dentition. The motivation to combine would have been that doing so allows modifying the model according to the changes of the components in different stages of treatment which allows addressing the problem of complexity associated with the display of treatment plans (Makarenkova, [0019]: “Any of these systems and methods may also address the problem of complexity associated with the display of one or more treatment plans, in which each treatment plan includes a large number of stages, and multiple potential ‘treatments’ at each stage, such as changes in the tooth position, angle, etc., as well as the components of the treatment applied or to be applied, such as interproximal reduction, extraction, ramps, attachments, hooks, etc. These components may be different at different stages of each treatment plan and may be widely different or similar between different treatment plans. The methods an apparatuses may provide simplified techniques for controlling the otherwise complicated and information-dense displays.”) (Makarenkova, [0007]: “The methods and apparatuses (e.g., systems, devices, etc.) described herein may relate to orthodontic treatment planning, including the visualization of teeth for modifying, enhancing and improving treatment plans. In particular, described herein are methods and apparatuses for reviewing, analyzing and/or modifying orthodontic treatment plans. These methods may include one or more user interfaces that are configured to improve review and modification of orthodontic treatment planning.”).
Therefore, the combination of Cunliffe and Makarenkova teaches
wherein performing one or more processing steps on a digital model of the patient's dentition comprises modifying the digital model to move one or more teeth (Cunliffe, [0023]: “Clean the remaining components by dilating them repeatedly then eroding them repeatedly along the original mesh. The components should each contain either tooth or gum, but not both. The tooth and especially gum may be over-segmented. … Merge the regions representing the tooth into a single mesh.”) (Cunliffe, [0027]: “The registration for steps 30 and 38 involves obtaining segmented digital 3D models of a tooth and gingiva from scanning the tooth at two different times, and rotating and translating the models to align them together for use in detecting changes in the two models. In particular, registration is the process of aligning or obtaining the best fit rotation and translation that needs to be applied to a moving mesh to align with the fixed mesh or generalized to multiple meshes.”) (Makarenkova, [0010]: “The digital model of the subject's dentition may include a 3D surface (or in some variations surface and volumetric) model of the subject's upper and/or lower arch, including teeth and in some variations gingiva (e.g., particularly the portion of gingiva around the teeth). The 3D model may be segmented into individual teeth that may be separately selected and/or moved by the user or system. The system or method may store user inputs and/or generate user output, e.g., modifications to the display, based on user selections from the controls and the processing by the system.”) (Makarenkova, [0065]: “The computer system can then determine the appropriate intermediate stages that can be used to move the teeth from the initial teeth position to the final teeth position.”).
Regarding claim 5, Cunliffe does not explicitly disclose determining collisions, identifying interproximal reductions, and/or modifying a clinical crown.
However, Makarenkova teaches determining collisions ([0027]: “Also described herein are methods and apparatuses for reviewing, modifying, confirming and/or selecting a treatment plan that includes comparing occlusal collisions of teeth between one or more treatment plans and/or the untreated teeth.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Makarenkova on determining collisions with the teachings from Cunliffe on processing a digital model of a patient’s dentition. The motivation to combine would have been that doing so allows determining an appropriate treatment plan for the patient (Makarenkova, [0007]: “The methods and apparatuses (e.g., systems, devices, etc.) described herein may relate to orthodontic treatment planning, including the visualization of teeth for modifying, enhancing and improving treatment plans. In particular, described herein are methods and apparatuses for reviewing, analyzing and/or modifying orthodontic treatment plans. These methods may include one or more user interfaces that are configured to improve review and modification of orthodontic treatment planning.”).
Therefore, the combination of Cunliffe and Makarenkova teaches
wherein performing one or more processing steps on a digital model of the patient's dentition comprises one or more of: determining collisions, identifying interproximal reductions, and/or modifying a clinical crown (Cunliffe, [0023]: “Clean the remaining components by dilating them repeatedly then eroding them repeatedly along the original mesh. The components should each contain either tooth or gum, but not both. The tooth and especially gum may be over-segmented. … Merge the regions representing the tooth into a single mesh.”) (Cunliffe, [0027]: “The registration for steps 30 and 38 involves obtaining segmented digital 3D models of a tooth and gingiva from scanning the tooth at two different times, and rotating and translating the models to align them together for use in detecting changes in the two models. In particular, registration is the process of aligning or obtaining the best fit rotation and translation that needs to be applied to a moving mesh to align with the fixed mesh or generalized to multiple meshes.”) (Makarenkova, [0027]: “Also described herein are methods and apparatuses for reviewing, modifying, confirming and/or selecting a treatment plan that includes comparing occlusal collisions of teeth between one or more treatment plans and/or the untreated teeth.”).
Claims 16, 17, 26, and 27 are substantially similar to claims 4 and 5 and therefore rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, 30, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunliffe in view of Zhong et al. (“Error detection and control of IIoT network based on CRC algorithm”), hereinafter Zhong.
Regarding claim 9, Cunliffe does not explicitly disclose a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code.
However, Zhong teaches calculating a CRC code for a data packet, comparing it to a check code, and determining whether or not to accept the data packet based on the comparison of the codes (Pg. 390: “This paper studies the cyclic redundancy check (CRC) algorithm, which can check the transmitted information well in the data communication circuit. The specific transmission protocol is that the computer at the transmitting end calculates the check code of the data according to the algorithm, and then adds the check code to the end of the data. The receiving end derives the direction by the same calculation (CRC code, and takes this CR) the code and the check code in the data packet are compared, if they are equal, then the data packet will continue to be received according to the protocol. If not equal, then it shows that the error occurred in the process of information transmission.”).
Cunliffe and Zhong are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data transmission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Zhong on using a CRC code to compare two digital data with the teachings from Cunliffe on comparing digital models. The motivation to combine would have been that using a CRC algorithm to make such a comparison provides a reliable way to detect and control error in data transmission (Zhong, Pg. 390, Left column: “In real scene, the remote and local data communication lines are inevitably affected by various kinds of interference. The message received by the receiver generates a code error. The error rate is used to measure the accuracy of the data communication line transmission information [2]. … In total, all communication systems adopt error detection control to improve the quality of data communication line transmission”) (Zhong, Pg. 390, Right column: “The experiment proves that the CRC algorithm is very reliable for the data packet transmission process.”).
Therefore, the combination of Cunliffe and Zhong teaches
wherein comparing the digital model of the patient's dentition to the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition comprises comparing a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code for the digital model of the patient's dentition to a CRC code for the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition (Cunliffe, [0018]: “That registration of the gingiva segmented 3D scans is used to compare the gum lines (step 32) and generate a gum line change map (step 34). Instead of using a registration algorithm, the 3D scans can be compared in other ways.”) (Cunliffe, [0004]: “comparing the gingiva segmented digital 3D model with the digital 3D model of the predicted original location”) (Zhong, Pg. 390: “This paper studies the cyclic redundancy check (CRC) algorithm, which can check the transmitted information well in the data communication circuit. The specific transmission protocol is that the computer at the transmitting end calculates the check code of the data according to the algorithm, and then adds the check code to the end of the data. The receiving end derives the direction by the same calculation (CRC code, and takes this CR) the code and the check code in the data packet are compared, if they are equal, then the data packet will continue to be received according to the protocol. If not equal, then it shows that the error occurred in the process of information transmission.”).
Regarding claim 10, Cunliffe/Zhong teaches
calculating the CRC code for the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition while generating the gingiva strip from the copy of the digital model of the patient's dentition (Cunliffe, [0017]: “This method also includes receiving a second 3D scan of the same patient's teeth and gingiva, 3D scan 2, optionally aligning and orienting 3D scan 2 (step 24), and segmenting the teeth from the gingiva in 3D scan 2 to determine the gum line (step 28).”) (Cunliffe, [0022]: “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.”) (Cunliffe, [0023]: “Clean the remaining components by dilating them repeatedly then eroding them repeatedly along the original mesh. The components should each contain either tooth or gum, but not both.”) (Zhong, Pg. 390: “This paper studies the cyclic redundancy check (CRC) algorithm, which can check the transmitted information well in the data communication circuit. The specific transmission protocol is that the computer at the transmitting end calculates the check code of the data according to the algorithm, and then adds the check code to the end of the data. The receiving end derives the direction by the same calculation (CRC code, and takes this CR) the code and the check code in the data packet are compared, if they are equal, then the data packet will continue to be received according to the protocol. If not equal, then it shows that the error occurred in the process of information transmission.”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Claims 12, 20, 21, 30, and 31 are substantially similar to claims 1, 9, and 10 and therefore rejected under a similar rationale as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Janzadeh et al. (US20170340414A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIN JEONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm ET.
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 at (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.
/HEIN JEONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186