DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv, et al., herein referred to as “Lv” (US 10500017 B2), further in view of Akasaka et al., herein referred to as “Akasaka” (JP 2006059014 A).
Regarding claim 1: Lv teaches a tooth body preparation system (title) comprising: a database unit configured to acquire (Lv, Fig. 3, “Computer” hosting: Lv, Fig 1., “Tooth preparation CAD software”; Lv, col. 3, ll. 47-48, wherein the CAD software includes a data reading module; Lv, col. 3, ll. 52-62, reciting: “The data reading module is configured to perform the following operations: … reading … data acquired by scanning the target tooth and three-dimensional volume data acquired by the CT scanner into the tooth preparation CAD software and storing the same for facilitating subsequent reading operations.” The computer is reading on database unit.) surface data of a tooth or a tooth model (Lv, Fig. 1, “ … three-dimensional surface data of the target tooth”) and volume data of the tooth (Lv, Fig. 1, “three-dimensional volume data … of the target tooth”); and
Lv further teaches to determine the distance between different parts within a tooth model (fig. 2, column 16, lines 30-50, surface preparation thickness and a distance from the finish line to a certain lower designated location) by using 3D surface model implemented from the surface data (Lv, col. 4, ll. 9-10, three-dimensional surface scanning data model acquired by the intra-oral three-dimensional scanner) and a 3D volume model implemented from the volume data (Lv, col. 4, ll. 7-8, three-dimensional volume data model acquired by the CT scanner) by aligning the 3D surface model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 8-10) and the 3D volume model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 7-8), the different parts include enamel model portion and pulp cavity model portion (column 3, lines 5-6).
However, Lv fails to teach a calculation unit configured to calculate a distance between corresponding parts of a 3D surface model implemented from the surface data and a 3D volume model implemented from the volume data after aligning the 3D surface model and the 3D volume model, wherein the calculation unit is configured to calculate a pulp cavity distance which is a distance from an enamel surface of a tooth of the 3D surface model to a pulp cavity surface of the 3D volume model.
Akasaka teaches a calculation unit (Akasaka ¶12, reciting: " … a distance calculation device of three dimensional CAD data and measured three dimensional data … “ Akasaka, Fig. 1, aligning unit, “positioning unit,” 9) configured to calculate a distance (Akasaka ¶12, reciting: " … a distance calculation device of three dimensional CAD data and measured three dimensional data … for calculating a distance between three dimensional CAD data and measured three dimensional data of a three dimensionally shaped object by aligning the three dimensional CAD data and the measured three dimensional data, …") between corresponding parts (Akasaka ¶12, reciting: “ … calculating the distance between the positioned subordinate plane and the measured three dimensional data corresponding to the subordinate plane … “) of a 3D surface model implemented from the surface data and a 3D volume model implemented from the volume data after aligning the 3D surface model and the 3D volume model (Akasaka, ¶12, reciting: “ … calculating a distance between three dimensional CAD data and measured three dimensional data of a three dimensionally shaped object by aligning the three dimensional CAD data and the measured three dimensional data, … ”, implying the aligning step is executed before the distance calculation step, wherein the measured three dimensional data is representative of a 3D volume model; Akasaka, ¶12, reciting: “ … provided with a positioning means for positioning the design reference plane [three dimensional CAD data] and the measured three dimensional data corresponding to the design reference plane [three dimensional CAD data], the subordinate plane and the measured three dimensional data corresponding to the subordinate plane,” alignment process of a 3D surface ‘plane’ and a measured 3D data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings from Lv to include a calculation unit for calculating the wall thickness of the tooth, i.e. the distance between corresponding parts of the 3D surface of a tooth and the 3D volume model of a tooth, after aligning the corresponding parts of the two 3D model representations. The motivation would have been to minimize and evaluate the potential error introduced in fitting the surface and volume data into the same coordinate system (Akasaka, ¶7, “To solve the problem that it is impossible to evaluate whether or not a dimension from a design reference surface which is not a reference for alignment of three dimensional CAD data and measured three dimensional data to a subordinate surface thereof is proper.”).
Furthermore, paragraph 32, Akasaka teaches shapes of surface B and C are evaluated based on the distance from surface A. Also see fig, 3A of Akasaka, surface A is the outermost surface of the object shown in fig. 3A which is similar to the enamel surface of a tooth (24 of fig. 1 of applicant’s drawing) and surface C of fig. 3A of Akasaka which is the closest interior surface of the object shown in fig. 3A to surface A which is similar to the surface of the pulp cavity surface (12 of fig. 1 of applicant’s drawing).
Since the tooth model of Lv include an outer surface of an enamel and an interior surface of the tooth model which is the surface of the pulp cavity, after the combining Lv and Akasaka, it would have been obvious to include: wherein the calculation unit is configured to calculate a pulp cavity distance which is a distance from an enamel surface of a tooth of the 3D surface model to a pulp cavity surface of the 3D volume model in order to accurately creating the tooth model in Lv.
Furthermore, it would also aid in evaluating the risks associated with a specific dental operation or approach by evaluating the depth of the pulp chamber within a patient’s tooth “ … and effectively improve the technical level of clinical treatment operations of a primary physician within a short time and improve the efficiency and quality of diagnosis and treatment … " (Lv, col. 8, ll. 31-34).
Regarding claim 2, Lv, in view of Akasaka, discloses the system of claim 1 and discloses further comprising a first scan unit (Lv, Fig. 1, intra-oral scanner; dental scanner with tooth surface data gathering capabilities) configured to acquire and transfer the surface data (Lv, col. 2, ll. 62-67, reciting: "1) acquiring three-dimensional surface scanning data of a crown portion of a target tooth with an intra-oral three-dimensional scanner … storing the two sets of data respectively for subsequent reading operation"; Lv, col. 3, ll. 1-9, reciting: "2) registering the two sets of data with tooth preparation CAD software … thereby finally storing the results …". Showing the relation between the surface data and the computer hosting a database (reading on database unit)) to the database unit (Lv, Fig. 2, computer; Lv, col. 7, ll. 56-63, reciting: “The computer is connected respectively with the intra-oral three-dimensional scanner … and the real-time monitoring device.” The fist scanning unit taught by Lv (intra-oral scanner) is connected to the database unit (Lv, col. 3, ll. 47-48: computer hosting CAD software, wherein the CAD software includes a data reading module that stores the scanned data)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Lv, in view of Akasaka, to include a first scan unit to store the 3D surface data of the tooth. The motivation would be to have the surface data of a tooth ready for use in the simulating the tooth being treated for appropriate preparation in the step of treatment planning, and to have a starting point of which the tooth preparation starts for subsequent analysis of the tooth being evaluated (Lv, col. 4, ll. 2-4, reciting: “ … extracting a fusion curved surface from the three-dimensional surface scanning data model M by using a finish line extraction algorithm …”. The surface data, in view of Lv, serves as a point for analyzing the surface of the tooth model).
Regarding claim 3, Lv, in view of Akasaka, discloses the system of claim 1.
Lv teaches further comprising a second scan unit (Lv, Fig. 1, Oral and maxillofacial cone beam CT scanner; dental scanner with tooth volume data gathering capabilities) configured to acquire and transfer the volume data (Lv, col. 2, ll. 64-67, reciting: "… 1) … acquiring three-dimensional volume data of the crown portion of the target tooth with an oral and maxillofacial cone beam CT scanner…". Acquisition of volume data; Lv, col. 3, ll. 1-9, reciting: "2) registering the two sets of data with tooth preparation CAD software … thereby finally storing the results …". Showing the relation between the surface data and the computer hosting a database (reading on database unit)) to the database (Lv, Fig. 2, computer; Lv, col. 7, ll. 56-63, reciting: “The computer is connected respectively with … the oral and maxillofacial cone beam CT scanner …” The second scanning unit (oral and maxillofacial cone beam CT scanner) taught by Lv is connected to the database unit (Lv, col. 13, ll. 21-29, “The tooth preparation CAD software may include a data reading module, a preprocessing module, a data fusion module, a constraint modeling module, and a postprocessing module, wherein these modules can perform the following operations when executed by a computing device such as a computer,” computer hosting CAD software).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined closure of Lv, in view of Akasaka, by connecting a second scanner to acquire and transfer volume data to a database unit. The motivation would be to have an additional type of data detailing the shape and amount of tooth being prepared for subsequent evaluation and treatment by a dental practitioner (Lv, col. 8, ll. 57-58, reciting: “ … so as to obtain data of the virtual tooth preparation model … ”).
Regarding claim 4, Lv, in view of Akasaka, discloses the system of claim 1, and teaches wherein the 3D volume model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 7-8, reciting: "… the three-dimensional volume data model N acquired by the CT scanner…") comprises data from a surface of the tooth (Lv, col. 3, ll. 5, dental enamel model portion, wherein the enamel encompasses the surface of a tooth; Lv, col. 13, ll. 19-42, reciting: "… a preprocessing module, a data fusion module, … wherein … the preprocessing module may be configured to perform the following operations: 1) acquisition of curved surface of fusion region: … extracting a fusion curved surface from the three-dimensional surface scanning data model … ", acquisition of a surface of the 3D surface model. A surface of the 3D surface model of a tooth is disclosed from the data fusion/merging process.) to a pulp cavity surface inside the tooth (Lv, col. 3, ll. 6, [surface of] pulp cavity model portion, wherein the innermost surface of a tooth is known, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to be the pulp cavity surface; Lv, col. 3, ll. 1-8, reciting: "2) registering … data (i.e., … the three-dimensional volume data) … separating a dental enamel model portion, a dentin model portion and a dental pulp cavity model portion, so as to obtain data of the virtual tooth preparation model … "; The enamel model portion encompasses the surface to the dentin of the tooth, the dentin model portion encompasses the inner surface of the enamel to the outer surface of the pulp cavity, and the pulp cavity model encompasses hollow pulp cavity of the tooth. Hence, the enamel portion, the dentin portion, and the pulp cavity portion of the volume model comprises data from a surface of the tooth to a pulp cavity surface, of which all the parts described are inside the tooth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the invention, to modify the teachings of Lv, in view of Akasaka, to include data from a surface of the tooth to a pulp cavity surface inside the tooth as part of the 3D volume model of a tooth. The motivation would be to assess the characteristics of different layers of the tooth to evaluate the appropriate type of treatment for each tooth "… and improve the efficiency and quality of diagnosis and treatment" (Lv, col. 2, ll. 55-56) by obtaining an accurate representation of the tooth being treated.
Regarding claim 5, Lv, in view of Akasaka, discloses the system of claim 1, and teaches wherein the calculation unit (Akasaka, ¶13, alignment unit) is configured to calculate a distance (Akasaka, ¶45, reciting: " …the three dimensional CAD data and the measured three dimensional data are aligned … and the distance therebetween is calculated.") after aligning (Akasaka, ¶45, reciting: " … the three dimensional CAD data and the measured three dimensional data are aligned with each other … ") between a tooth surface (Lv, col. 3, ll. 5, dental enamel model portion, wherein the enamel encompasses the surface of a tooth; Lv, col. 13, ll. 19-42, reciting: "… a preprocessing module, a data fusion module, … wherein … the preprocessing module may be configured to perform the following operations: 1) acquisition of curved surface of fusion region: … extracting a fusion curved surface from the three-dimensional surface scanning data model … ", acquisition of a surface of the 3D surface model. A surface of the 3D surface model of a tooth is disclosed from the data fusion/merging process.) of the 3D surface model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 8-10) and a tooth surface (Lv, col. 3, ll. 5, dental enamel model portion) of the 3D volume model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 7-8).
In the current provided disclosure, there is insufficient structure or functionality supporting "tooth surface". Hence, "tooth surface" is construed as "surface", as the 3D surface and 3D volume model taught by Lv, in view of Akasaka, represent the shape and volume of a tooth. Lv recites, "… a tooth preparation method is provided, which includes … defining design parameters of the tooth preparation, and separating a dental enamel model portion, … " (Lv, col. 19, ll. 19-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the invention, to modify the teachings of Lv, in view of Akasaka, by adding a calculation unit that would align between a 3D model and another 3D model, and then calculate the corresponding distances between the two 3D models. The motivation would have been to derive an accurate understanding of how much tooth volume there is for a dental practitioner to work with (Lv, col. 4, ll. 21-23, reciting: “… significantly reduce a translation error … and thus provides a good initial value for accurate registration.”).
Regarding claim 8, Lv, in view of Akasaka, discloses the system of claim 1, and discloses further comprising a distance stage display unit (Akasaka, ¶25, output unit 5;) configured to visually display the distance (Akasaka, ¶25, reciting: " … output unit 5 is, for example, a monitor … and outputs data such as three dimensional CAD data, measured three dimensional data, and evaluation results."; Akasaka, ¶44, reciting: "… the distance between the measured three dimensional data and the intersection is stored in the fourth parameter. Display is performed by color coding or the like based on the value of the fourth parameter." The fourth parameter cited represents the distance between the corresponding parts between the coordinate-converted measured three dimensional data and the subordinate plane associated with the measured three-dimensional data, which is displayed in a color based on this distance.;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined closure of Lv, in view of Akasaka, by connecting a distance stage display unit to visualize the distances calculated by the calculation unit. The motivation would be to aid a dental practitioner in quickly recognizing how far the ‘limit’ of the preparation site for the tooth is (Akita, ¶7: “Therefore, an object of the present invention is to provide … an intuitive and instant recognition of a distance to a guide point.”).
Regarding claim 11, Lv teaches a method comprising:
a data acquisition step of acquiring surface data of a tooth or a tooth model and volume data of the tooth (Lv, col. 2, ll. 62-66; Fig. 1, Intra-oral three-dimensional scanner, oral and maxillofacial cone beam CT scanner);
a data merging step of merging a 3D surface model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 47-col. 5, ll. 42, reciting: “The data fusion … to perform the following operations: 1) establishment of differential coordinate … 2) establishment of constraint condition … 3) iteration processing of deformation blending … 4) design of deformation weight coefficient … 5) reconstruction of model mesh.”) implemented from the surface data with a 3D volume model implemented from the volume data (Lv, Fig. 1, “Fused data of registration between three-dimensional volume data and three-dimensional surface data of the target tooth”; col. 14, ll. 24 - col. 15, ll. 38, process of data model fusion);
Lv further teaches to determine the distance between different parts within a tooth model (fig. 2, column 16, lines 30-50, surface preparation thickness and a distance from the finish line to a certain lower designated location) by using 3D surface model implemented from the surface data (Lv, col. 4, ll. 9-10, three-dimensional surface scanning data model acquired by the intra-oral three-dimensional scanner) and a 3D volume model implemented from the volume data (Lv, col. 4, ll. 7-8, three-dimensional volume data model acquired by the CT scanner) by aligning the 3D surface model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 8-10) and the 3D volume model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 7-8), the different parts include enamel model portion and pulp cavity model portion (column 3, lines 5-6).
However, Lv fails to teach a distance calculating step of calculating a distance between corresponding parts of the 3D surface model and the 3D volume model after aligning the 3D surface model and the 3D volume model, wherein in the distance calculation step, a pulp cavity distance is calculated which is a distance from an enamel surface of a tooth of the 3D surface model to a pulp cavity surface of the 3D volume model.
Akasaka teaches a calculation unit (Akasaka ¶12, reciting: " … a distance calculation device of three dimensional CAD data and measured three dimensional data … “ Akasaka, Fig. 1, aligning unit, “positioning unit,” 9) configured to calculate a distance (Akasaka ¶12, reciting: " … a distance calculation device of three dimensional CAD data and measured three dimensional data … for calculating a distance between three dimensional CAD data and measured three dimensional data of a three dimensionally shaped object by aligning the three dimensional CAD data and the measured three dimensional data, …") between corresponding parts (Akasaka ¶12, reciting: “ … calculating the distance between the positioned subordinate plane and the measured three dimensional data corresponding to the subordinate plane … “) of a 3D surface model implemented from the surface data and a 3D volume model implemented from the volume data after aligning the 3D surface model and the 3D volume model (Akasaka, ¶12, reciting: “ … calculating a distance between three dimensional CAD data and measured three dimensional data of a three dimensionally shaped object by aligning the three dimensional CAD data and the measured three dimensional data, … ”, implying the aligning step is executed before the distance calculation step, wherein the measured three dimensional data is representative of a 3D volume model; Akasaka, ¶12, reciting: “ … provided with a positioning means for positioning the design reference plane [three dimensional CAD data] and the measured three dimensional data corresponding to the design reference plane [three dimensional CAD data], the subordinate plane and the measured three dimensional data corresponding to the subordinate plane,” alignment process of a 3D surface ‘plane’ and a measured 3D data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings from Lv to include a calculation unit for calculating the wall thickness of the tooth, i.e. the distance between corresponding parts of the 3D surface of a tooth and the 3D volume model of a tooth, after aligning the corresponding parts of the two 3D model representations. The motivation would have been to minimize and evaluate the potential error introduced in fitting the surface and volume data into the same coordinate system (Akasaka, ¶7, “To solve the problem that it is impossible to evaluate whether or not a dimension from a design reference surface which is not a reference for alignment of three dimensional CAD data and measured three dimensional data to a subordinate surface thereof is proper.”).
Furthermore, paragraph 32, Akasaka teaches shapes of surface B and C are evaluated based on the distance from surface A. Also see fig, 3A of Akasaka, surface A is the outermost surface of the object shown in fig. 3A which is similar to the enamel surface of a tooth (24 of fig. 1 of applicant’s drawing) and surface C of fig. 3A of Akasaka which is the closest interior surface of the object shown in fig. 3A to surface A which is similar to the surface of the pulp cavity surface (12 of fig. 1 of applicant’s drawing).
Since the tooth model of Lv include an outer surface of an enamel and an interior surface of the tooth model which is the surface of the pulp cavity, after the combining Lv and Akasaka, it would have been obvious the measurement Lv would include: wherein the calculation unit is configured to calculate a pulp cavity distance which is a distance from an enamel surface of a tooth of the 3D surface model to a pulp cavity surface of the 3D volume model in order to accurately creating the tooth model in Lv.
Furthermore, it can aid in evaluating the risks associated with a specific dental operation or approach by evaluating the depth of the pulp chamber within a patient’s tooth “ … and effectively improve the technical level of clinical treatment operations of a primary physician within a short time and improve the efficiency and quality of diagnosis and treatment … " (Lv, col. 8, ll. 31-34).
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 has similar limitations as Claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv et al., herein referred to as “Lv” (US 10,500,017 B2), further in view of Akasaka et al., herein referred to as “Akasaka” (JP 2006059014 A), further in view of Van Lierde (WO 2013034462 A2), herein referred to as “Van Lierde”.
Regarding claim 7, Lv, in view of Akasaka, discloses the system of claim 6, and teaches wherein the distance (Akasaka, ¶45) ….
Additionally, Lv teaches a measurement point (Lv, col. 4, ll. 1-4, reciting: “ … of which the point set is fixed, … extracting a fusion curved surface from the three-dimensional surface scanning data model … ”, where the fixed point set is a set of measurement points. A point from the fixed point set is used as a “measurement point” of the 3D surface model.) of the 3D surface model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 8-10, three-dimensional surface scanning data model) and a pulp cavity surface (Lv, col. 3, ll. 6, [surface of] pulp cavity model portion; Lv, col. 3, ll. 1-8, pulp cavity model portion) of the 3D volume model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 7-8, three-dimensional volume data model).
However, Lv, in view of Akasaka, fails to teach is the shortest distance from … to ….
Van Lierde teaches is the shortest distance (Van Lierde, pg. 8, ll. 20-21, reciting: “ … calculating the distance between each node … and the closest point on the … surface … ”, the distance from one measurement point to its closest point is the shortest distance between two points.) from a measurement point (Lv, col. 4, ll. 1-4) of the 3D surface model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 8-10) to (Van Lierde, pg. 8, ll. 22-23, reciting, “ ... and the closest point on the outer root surface”, the structure “between … and …”, wherein the recited represents the endpoint (destination from “each node on the root canal surface”) between the two measurement points of which the distance is being measured.) the pulp cavity surface (Lv, col. 3, ll. 6; Lv, col. 3, ll. 1-8) of the 3D volume model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention, to modify Lv, in view of Akasaka, by configuring the distance calculated to be the shortest from a measurement point of the 3D surface model to the pulp cavity surface of the 3D volume model, derive the shortest (minimal) distance from the surface to the pulp cavity surface of a tooth. The motivation would have been to assess how much tooth matter there is between corresponding measurement points of a 3D surface model and a 3D pulp cavity surface of a 3D volume model of a tooth (Van Lierde, pg. 10, ll. 5-6, reciting: “ … minimal root wall thickness around the post, post with dimensions that limits the risk of tooth fracture … ”), aiding dental practitioners in assessing ‘risk’ in areas of a tooth and available treatment options, such as when to stop using a tool while preparing a tooth.
Method claims 14 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 7. Therefore, method claim 14 corresponds to apparatus claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above.
Claim 14 has similar limitations as of Claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 7.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv et al., herein referred to as “Lv” (US 10,500,017 B2), further in view of Akasaka et al., herein referred to as “Akasaka” (JP 2006059014 A), further in view of Akita et al., herein referred to as herein referred to as “Akita” (US 2010/0153000).
Regarding claim 9, Lv, in view of Akasaka and Akita, discloses the system of claim 8, and discloses wherein the distance stage display unit (Akita, Fig. 1, object display control section 9; Akita, Fig. 9-15, display section 5) is configured to separately display a plurality of patterns (Akita, ¶12, reciting: “… object display control section may set a pattern on the object …”) in accordance with a size of the distance (Akita, ¶12, reciting: “… in accordance with the distance from the arbitrary position …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined closure Lv, in view of Akasaka and Akita, to separately display a plurality of patterns in accordance with a size of the distances between the corresponding parts of a 3D surface model implemented from the surface data and a 3D volume model implemented from the volume data of a tooth. The motivation would be to be able to quickly distinguish with different patterns how much volume of tooth matter is present to assess risk in treatment (Akita, ¶59, reciting: “ … the density of the pattern on the object in the vicinity of the vehicle position becomes higher gradually as the vehicle approaches the guide target intersection.”).
Regarding claim 10, Lv, in view of Akasaka and Akita, discloses the system of claim 9, and discloses wherein the plurality of patterns (Akita, ¶12: “… pattern on the object in accordance with the distance …,” produces plurality of patterns – different color for each distance) displayed by the distance stage unit (Akita, Fig. 9-15: display section 5) are separately displayed (Akita, Fig. 12, threshold of colors displayed in accordance to distance from guide object) with different colors (Akita, ¶10: “… the display color is changed continuously in accordance with the distance to the guide point …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined closure of Lv, in view of Akasaka and Akita, by assigning colors to the plurality of patterns displayed in accordance to the distance. The motivation would be to quickly distinguish how deep the volume of the tooth is by seeing a color on the screen (Akita, ¶57: “ … a distance interval between the guide target intersection and a position 100 m before the intersection may be displayed in red, a distance interval ranging 100 to 200 m before the intersection maybe displayed in yellow, and a distance interval ranging 200 to 300 m before the intersection may be displayed in blue.”).
Regarding claim 15, Lv, in view of Akasaka, discloses the system of claim 11, and discloses the distance calculated in the distance calculating step, but fails to disclose further comprising a pattern giving step of appearing in a pattern form on a distance stage display unit in order to visually display the distance calculated in the distance calculating step.
Akita discloses further comprising a pattern giving step of appearing in a pattern form (Akita, ¶12, reciting: “ The object display control section may set a pattern on the object … ”). on a distance stage display unit (Akita, Fig. 9-15: display section 5) in order to visually display (Akita, ¶12, reciting: “… set a pattern on the object in accordance with the distance from the arbitrary position on the route to the guide point. … the pattern on the object is set such that a density of the pattern becomes higher at a portion of the object closer to the guide point.”) the distance calculated in the distance calculating step (Akasaka, ¶12, “ … distance between three dimensional CAD data and measured three dimensional data of a three dimensionally shaped object …”; Distance calculating step by Akasaka.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined closure of Lv, in view of Akasaka, by displaying a distance in the form of a pattern on a distance stage display unit. The motivation would be to provide an intuitive, timely means of displaying a quantitative measurement of how far the pulp cavity is in the form of a pattern for timely recognition by the dental practitioner (Akita, ¶7: “Therefore, an object of the present invention is to provide … an intuitive and instant recognition of a distance to a guide point.”).
Regarding claim 16, Lv, in view of Akasaka and Akita, discloses the system of claim 15, and discloses wherein a plurality of patterns are formed (Akita, ¶12) in accordance with the distance (Akita, ¶12, reciting: “… set a pattern on the object in accordance with the distance from the arbitrary position on the route to the guide point.”) calculated in the distance calculating step (Akasaka, ¶12), and are separately displayed with different colors (Akita, ¶10: “ … color of the object so as to be changed in a gradual manner in accordance with the distance from the arbitrary position … ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined closure of Lv, Akasaka, and Akita by forming patterns in accordance to distances to be shown with different colors. The motivation would be to gain a quick understanding of how far an object or abnormality is when identifying the proximity of a part of a tooth relative to the tooth’s surface by the color displayed (Akita, ¶6, reciting “… enables an intuitive and instant recognition of a distance to a guide point.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lv and Akasaka does not teach calculating a distance between the enamel surface and pulp cavity surface, has been considered.
In response: Lv fig, 2, and column 16, lines 40-45, teaches to determine a distance h1 which represents a surface preparation thickness (note: surface of a tooth is surface of an enamel). Furthermore, from fig. 1, applicant’s drawing showing the thickness of the enamel d is a distance between the enamel surface and pulp cavity surface.
In other words, Lv teaches to determine the distance between different parts within a tooth model (fig. 2, column 16, lines 30-50, surface preparation thickness and a distance from the finish line to a certain lower designated location) by using 3D surface model implemented from the surface data (Lv, col. 4, ll. 9-10, three-dimensional surface scanning data model acquired by the intra-oral three-dimensional scanner) and a 3D volume model implemented from the volume data (Lv, col. 4, ll. 7-8, three-dimensional volume data model acquired by the CT scanner) by aligning the 3D surface model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 8-10) and the 3D volume model (Lv, col. 4, ll. 7-8), the different parts include enamel model portion and pulp cavity model portion (column 3, lines 5-6).
Akasaka, paragraph 0009, further teaches to calculate a distance between 2 surfaces (surface C and surface D) of a molded product (paragraph 0001)(also see paragraph 0015). Paragraph 33, fig, 3A further disclosed that both surface A and surface C of a molded product (paragraph 0001) are design reference surface and are in a dependent relationship. Paragraph 32, Akasaka also teaches to use the distance from surface A to surface C to evaluate shape of surface C. Paragraph 0001 further teaches to align 3D CAD data and measured 3D data of a 3D shape object to calculate the distance between them, which are used, for example for shape evaluation. In short, Akasaka teaches the distance between 2 surfaces can be calculated.
Akasaka is analogy to Lv as surface A in Akasaka is the most outer surface of a molded product which is similar to Lv that enamel surface is the most outer surface of a tooth model. Surface C in Akasaka is the surface of a different object within the molded product which is similar to the pulp cavity surface within the tooth model of Lv.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to calculate a distance between the enamel surface and pulp cavity surface, such that the tooth model which include the enamel and pulp cavity of Lv including their shapecan be accurately generated.
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 KING Y POON whose telephone number is (571)270-0728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Alfred Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617