Status under America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21 and 23-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 21, a “system” is claimed comprised of “one or more processors configured to . . . . generate one or more aligner trays.” It is unclear how a processor, in and of itself is capable of generating an aligner shell. Insufficient structure is set forth for the “system” to reasonably support the required step of generating an aligner tray.
Indicated Allowability Withdrawn
The indicated allowability of claims 1, 3-21 and 23-40 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference to Chang et al (US 2021/0097703). Rejections based on the newly cited reference follow.
Rejection based on Prior Art
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-21 and 23-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (US 2021/0097703) in view of Aamodt (US 2020/0306010).
Chang et al disclose a system/method for aligning 3D dentition surface data with 3D dentition volumetric (voxel) data (see abstract). More particularly, with regard to claims 1 and 21, Chang et al disclose receiving 3D intraoral surface scan data (paragraph [0075]); receiving 3D volumetric scan data (paragraph [0074]); generating a first set of descriptors characterizing tooth crown surfaces (paragraph [0101] vertices are extracted and normal vectors calculated based on the curvature of the tooth surface); generating a second set of descriptors characterizing the tooth crown surface based on the volumetric scan data (intensity values of the volumetric scan data (voxels) are extracted at sampling locations and an intensity profile in the normal direction of each vertex is generated (paragraph [0103]); generating a best fit transform based on the first and second set of descriptors (a conversion matrix is calculated between the surface data and volumetric data by optimizing a distance between the vertex of the surface data and the edge data/intensity values of the volume data to be minimized (S30) and moving and converting locations of the 3D surface data and/or 3D volumetric data according to a movement conversion matrix calculated by an optimization process (S40)(paragraph [0099]) and aligning the intraoral surface scan data and volumetric scan data based on the best fit registration transform. Chang et al meets all the limitations of claims 1 and 21 with the exception for that requiring the generation of one or more aligner trays based on the surface and volumetric scan data. Chang et al does, however, indicate that the method of aligning 3D surface data and 3D volumetric data may be used in orthodontic treatments (e.g. paragraph [0069]). Furthermore, in a similar method or aligning 3D surface scan data with 3D volumetric data, Aamodt teaches that the method may be used for generating orthodontic aligner trays for repositioning a patient’s teeth (note paragraph [0011]). To have used the Chang et al method of aligning 3D surface data with 3D volumetric data to plan and generate orthodontic aligner trays as taught by Aamodt would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regard to claims 3 and 23, the Chang et al first set of descriptors (the vertices; Fig 14 paragraph [0101]) are in a normal direction to the local surface. In regard to claims 4 and 24, the Chang et al 3D data alignment method of calculating a conversion matrix (S30) and moving and converting locations of 3D surface data or 3D volumetric data according to the movement conversion matrix in an optimization process (S40) appears to meet the “registration transform candidates” limitation of claims 4 and 24. In regard to claims 5 and 25, to have used the known prior art Hough Transform technique for detecting curvature shape in the data would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In regard to claims 6 and 26, Chang et al discloses an iterative process for generating the registration transform candidates (see paragraph [0099]). In regard to claims 7-10 and 27-30, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have generated the Chang et al transform candidates at paragraph [0099] based on a closest point to plane, point to point, or lowest surface proximity measure as a matter of routine practice. In regard to claims 11 and 31, the color data in scanned images is conventional. In regard to claims 12 and 32, note Chang et al paragraph [0074]. In regard to claims 13-15, 18, 33-35, and 38 the display of the aligned surface data image and volumetric data image in Chang et al is implicit/obvious in the disclosure. In regard to claims 16, 17, 36 and 37, to have used the Chang et al method on the upper and lower jaws of a patient would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In regard to claims 19, 20, 39 and 40, as set forth above, Aamodt teaches that a method or aligning 3D surface scan data with 3D volumetric data may be used for generating orthodontic aligner trays and plans for repositioning a patient’s teeth (note paragraph [0011]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 272-4964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/RALPH A LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 (571) 272-4712