Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered and considered by the examiner. By the
amendment, claims 1-8 and 11-17 are amended. Following Applicants arguments and amendments made, Examiner modify the prior art rejections. And, the 101 rejection is still maintained. See office action
Applicant arguments 101
Applicant submits that, under the analysis set forth in the August 4 Memo, the claims are eligible at least because the claims improve computer functionality or another technology or technical field by improving computer processing of dental treatment plans, improving dental modeling, and improving computer-assisted prosthodontic treatment planning.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites using a virtual representation of a patent dentition, generating an orthodontic treatment plan, determining changes in tooth geometry associated with the prosthodontic treatment, generating a visualization of those changes, displaying the visualization and generating a prosthodontic treatment plan. At a high level, this is recognized as collecting and analyzing dental information to formulate and display a treatment plan. This is similar to a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(III)(A). Claim step of “generating a prosthodontic treatment plan based on the virtual model of the patient's dentition and the determined changes in tooth volume” is an mental "observation, evaluation, [or] judgment" or that can be performed using pen and paper, thus it falls under the “Mental process” of abstract idea. For example, a dentist can look at a model, calculate volume loss, and mentally decide what crown or bridge size is needed. The use of a "virtual model" (3D digital scan) and a computer to execute this plan generally constitutes using a computer as a tool to automate a human process rather than transforming it. For example, a prosthodontist receives a physical plaster cast (model) of a patient's teeth. The prosthodontist looks at the cast, mentally visualizes the occlusion (bite), and sketches a treatment plan on paper, identifying which teeth to cap and where a tooth is missing, thus creating a treatment plan. The “virtual model” and “visualization” are being used as the tools for carrying out the treatment planning analysis itself. Unlike the August 4 memo, the present claim does not contain additional elements that improves 3D modeling in dental technology or any other technology. Thus, the claims is directed to the improvement in abstract idea itself.
Applicant arguments 103
Applicant argues the combination of references especially does not teach “determining, for each of at least a subset of the plurality of intermediate configurations, a change in tooth volume geometry”.
Examiner response
In view Applicant arguments and amendments, Examiner withdraw the Kuo references and cited the new reference Knopp that teaches “determining, for each of at least a subset of the plurality of intermediate configurations, a change in tooth volume geometry” in combination with Hultgren and Sachdeva. See office action for detail.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 11 recites the limitation “the virtual model” in first limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the virtual model” in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-7 are directed to method or process, that falls on one of statutory category.
Claims: 11-17 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium, that falls on one of statutory category that is manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites
generating an orthodontic treatment plan based on the virtual model of the patient's dentition, the orthodontic treatment plan including a plurality of tooth movement steps to move one or more teeth of the patient's dentition from a beginning configuration to a plurality of intermediate configurations, wherein each intermediate configuration includes a tooth volume geometry for one or more teeth of the patient's dentition; (the mental act of planning tooth movement is a method of organizing human activity (planning) and a mental process. Mentally designing the final smile and necessary movements. Mentally visualizing the steps of movement, such as imagining the teeth at 3 months, 6 months, etc. Mentally predicting the shape/position of the teeth at each step has historically been done by a human mind, fitting the definition of an abstract idea under "mental processes". For example, an orthodontist looks at a 3D digital model on a screen. They mentally simulate moving the canine tooth to close a gap, determining that it must first be up righted, then moved distally, and finally rotated. The orthodontist mentally creates a series of 5 "snapshots" (intermediate stages) in their mind to represent this movement.
determining, for each of at least a subset of the plurality of intermediate configurations, a change in tooth volume geometry, the change in tooth volume corresponding to a prosthodontic treatment; (The step of "determining a change in tooth volume geometry" involves evaluating data to identify differences between tooth positions. This is an evaluation and calculation that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper. The mental act of comparing a first, second, and final representation of a tooth and calculating the numerical difference in volume by reduction. for example, a dentist wants to track the progress of a tooth movement treatment (e.g., orthodontic aligners) to see how much tooth structure is shifting at different stages (intermediate configurations).)
generating a prosthodontic treatment plan based on the virtual model of the patient's dentition and the determined changes in tooth volume; (The core of the claim—interpreting dental anatomy to create a plan—is an "observation, evaluation, [or] judgment". A dentist can look at a model, calculate volume loss, and mentally decide what crown or bridge size is needed. The use of a "virtual model" (3D digital scan) and a computer to execute this plan generally constitutes using a computer as a tool to automate a human process rather than transforming it. For example, a prosthodontist receives a physical plaster cast (model) of a patient's teeth. The prosthodontist looks at the cast, mentally visualizes the occlusion (bite), and sketches a treatment plan on paper, identifying which teeth to cap and where a tooth is missing, thus creating a treatment plan.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of generating, for each of at least a subset of the plurality of intermediate configurations, a visualization of the determined change in tooth volume geometry and displaying the visualization can also be viewed as merely presenting data and falls under the insignificant post-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, a method of planning a dental treatment for a patient's dentition is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of generating, for each of at least a subset of the plurality of intermediate configurations, a visualization of the determined change in tooth volume geometry and displaying the visualization can also be viewed as merely presenting data/display and falls under the insignificant post-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); The claim does not require a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement" of technology to generate the visualization, it is just "off-the-shelf, conventional... computer, network, and display technology". Thus, a method of planning a dental treatment for a patient's dentition is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 11 recites
generate an orthodontic treatment plan based on the virtual model of the patient's dentition, the orthodontic treatment plan including a plurality of tooth movement steps to move one or more teeth of the patient's dentition from a beginning configuration to a plurality of intermediate configurations, wherein each intermediate configuration includes a tooth volume geometry for one or more teeth of the patient's dentition; (the mental act of planning tooth movement is a method of organizing human activity (planning) and a mental process. Mentally designing the final smile and necessary movements. Mentally visualizing the steps of movement, such as imagining the teeth at 3 months, 6 months, etc. Mentally predicting the shape/position of the teeth at each step has historically been done by a human mind, fitting the definition of an abstract idea under "mental processes". For example, an orthodontist looks at a 3D digital model on a screen. They mentally simulate moving the canine tooth to close a gap, determining that it must first be up righted, then moved distally, and finally rotated. The orthodontist mentally creates a series of 5 "snapshots" (intermediate stages) in their mind to represent this movement.)
evaluate a restorative parameter at each of the plurality of intermediate configurations; ("Evaluating" and "comparing" are actions that can be carried out by a human, making them "mental processes". The "plurality of intermediate configurations" is merely a set of data points, and analyzing them is an intellectual activity rather than a concrete physical result.)
determine, for each of at least a subset of the plurality of intermediate configurations, a change in tooth volume geometry, the change in tooth volume corresponding to a prosthodontic treatment; (The step of "determining a change in tooth volume geometry" involves evaluating data to identify differences between tooth positions. This is an evaluation and calculation that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper. The mental act of comparing a first, second, and final representation of a tooth and calculating the numerical difference in volume by reduction. for example, a dentist wants to track the progress of a tooth movement treatment (e.g., orthodontic aligners) to see how much tooth structure is shifting at different stages (intermediate configurations).)
generating a prosthodontic treatment plan based on the virtual model of the patient's dentition and the determined changes in tooth volume; (The core of the claim—interpreting dental anatomy to create a plan—is an "observation, evaluation, [or] judgment". A dentist can look at a model, calculate volume loss, and mentally decide what crown or bridge size is needed. The use of a "virtual model" (3D digital scan) and a computer to execute this plan generally constitutes using a computer as a tool to automate a human process rather than transforming it. For example, a prosthodontist receives a physical plaster cast (model) of a patient's teeth. The prosthodontist looks at the cast, mentally visualizes the occlusion (bite), and sketches a treatment plan on paper, identifying which teeth to cap and where a tooth is missing, thus creating a treatment plan.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, claim 11 recites the additional elements of generate, for each of at least a subset of the plurality of intermediate configurations, a visualization of the determined change in tooth volume geometry and display the visualization viewed as merely presenting data and falls under the insignificant post-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions for planning a dental treatment for a patient's dentition that when executed by a processor cause a computer to in claim 11 is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, a method of planning a dental treatment for a patient's dentition is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. In particular, claim 11 recites the additional elements of generate, for each of at least a subset of the plurality of intermediate configurations, a visualization of the determined change in tooth volume geometry and display the visualization viewed as merely presenting data/display and falls under the insignificant post-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); The claim does not require a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement" of technology to generate the visualization, it is just "off-the-shelf, conventional... computer, network, and display technology". The additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions for planning a dental treatment for a patient's dentition that when executed by a processor cause a computer to in claim 11 is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Thus, a method of planning a dental treatment for a patient's dentition is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 and 12 further recites wherein generating the visualization of the change in tooth volume geometry includes generating an overlay. The claim primarily involves gathering data (e.g., tooth volume scans) and simply displaying or overlaying it and falls under the insignificant post-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Such activities are considered routine, conventional, or tangential to the core "solution" (if any) and therefore do not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 3 and 13 further recites wherein generating the visualization of the change in tooth volume geometry includes superimposing a modified tooth volume geometry with an unmodified tooth volume geometry. Generating a visualization by superimposing two 3D models (modified vs. unmodified tooth volume) is fundamentally a method of organizing, comparing, and displaying information—a form of mathematical manipulation and data visualization. Under Electric Power Group and its progeny (e.g., AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc.), such visualization techniques are often considered abstract ideas (similar to "collecting/analyzing/presenting information"). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 4 and 14 further recites wherein generating the visualization of the change in tooth volume geometry includes superimposing a modified tooth volume geometry over an unmodified tooth volume geometry. Generating a visualization by superimposing two 3D models (modified vs. unmodified tooth volume) is fundamentally a method of organizing, comparing, and displaying information—a form of mathematical manipulation and data visualization. Under Electric Power Group and its progeny (e.g., AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc.), such visualization techniques are often considered abstract ideas (similar to "collecting/analyzing/presenting information"). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 5 and 15 further recites wherein generating the visualization of the change in tooth volume geometry includes generating a prosthodontic geometry based on the change in tooth volume geometry. The claim primarily involves collecting 3D data points from a scanner and displaying them on a screen—and falls under the insignificant post-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Such activities are considered routine, conventional, or tangential to the core "solution" (if any) and therefore do not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. "Taking a 3D scan and showing it on a screen “ is insignificant data gathering. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 6 and 16 further recites wherein generating the visualization of the change in tooth volume geometry includes generating a visualization of material removal geometry. "Generating a visualization of material removal" can be viewed as taking 3D scanned data of a tooth, processing it (calculating differences), and displaying it. It is just conventional visualization software acting on data, it is seen as "gathering" or "presenting" information. MPEP 2106.05(g) classifies steps like "obtaining data" or "calculating information" that are incidental to a broader method as "insignificant extra-solution activity". The core of the invention is simply knowing what was removed, and the visual is merely for human observation, the step of visualizing is considered a "nominal or tangential addition". Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 7 and 17 further recites wherein generating the visualization of the change in tooth volume geometry includes generating a visualization of material addition geometry. The claim recites an abstract idea (data processing/visualization) and the additional steps (generating the visual) are "insignificant extra-solution activity" because they simply present information without providing an inventive technical solution to a technical problem. "Generating a visualization of material addition" can be viewed as taking 3D scanned data of a tooth, processing it (calculating differences), and displaying it. It is just conventional visualization software acting on data, it is seen as "gathering" or "presenting" information. MPEP 2106.05(g) classifies steps like "obtaining data" or "calculating information" that are incidental to a broader method as "insignificant extra-solution activity". The core of the invention is simply knowing what was added, and the visual is merely for human observation, the step of visualizing is considered a "nominal or tangential addition". Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Examiner note: Claim 8 and 18 recites fabricating orthodontic aligners and/or a preparation guide. The claim is directed to a method of planning and creating dental appliances. While it involves data processing (configuring teeth), it is primarily directed to a physical, clinical treatment method (orthodontic/prosthodontic). Claim 8-10 and 18-20 integrates any recited abstract idea into a practical application by requiring fabrication of physical dental devices, including orthodontic aligners and/or preparation guide, based on the treatment plans and intermediate configurations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
7. Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hultgren et al. (PUB NO: US 20050010450A1) in view of Sachdeva et al. "(PUB NO: US20040029068A1) and further in view of Knopp et al. (PUB NO: US 20040253562 A1)
Regarding claim 1
Hultgren teaches a method of planning a dental treatment for a patient's dentition, (see para 36-A method, apparatus, and article of manufacture for providing dental treatment plans using electronic models, and more particularly to a method, apparatus, and article of manufacture for utilizing electronic models of patient teeth in interdisciplinary dental treatment plans is disclosed. FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a computing system constructed according to one embodiment of the present invention.) the method comprising:
generating an orthodontic treatment plan based on the virtual model of the patient's dentition, (see para 39-The electronic model is shared between the various dental health care providers 111-114 to develop and implement a treatment plan for the patient. As part of this process, each dental health care provider 111-114 may propose a course of treatment using the electronic model. Because the treatment plan being proposed is generated digitally, the electronic model is used to construct the expected results from the treatment being proposed. As is discussed in various of the above referenced and commonly assigned patent applications, the individual teeth within the model may be located and moved as desired. See also para 56-FIG. 8 illustrates an electronic model of upper 801 and lower 802 arches for an orthodontic treatment plan 800 constructed according to an embodiment of the present invention.)
the orthodontic treatment plan including a plurality of tooth movement steps to move one or more teeth of the patient's dentition see para 65- The eModel editing/manipulation module 2112 permits the user to identify individual teeth within the electronic module as well as separate and move the individual teeth relative to each other as part of a treatment plan.)
display the visualization. (See para 52- Using standard digital graphic programming techniques, results of a proposed treatment plan, shown in the form of a modified electronic model, may be superimposed upon these photographs to illustrate to the patient the likely results from a particular course of treatment. See para 640-65- To interact with the electronic models, the system includes an eModel display/manipulation module 211)
generating a prosthodontic treatment plan based on a virtual model of the patient's dentition and the determined change in tooth volume, the change in tooth volume corresponding to the a prosthodontic treatment; (see para 40-Additionally, the electronic models may be used to define and construct crown, bridge and implants that when fabricated may be inserted into a patient's mouth. FIG. 3 illustrates an electronic model of upper 301 (in fig 3 element -103) and lower 302 (in fig 3 element -102)-arches for a patient where a prep site for such a dental appliance may be inserted. Typically, the above-described orthodontic treatment plans are developed by one professional, an orthodontist, and the crown-based treatment plan is developed by a general dentist. See para 59-70-FIG. 15 illustrates an electronic model of upper 1501 and lower 1502 arches for a general dentist treatment plan constructed according to an embodiment of the present invention. In this option, typically tooth restoration and reconstruction is performed with the creation and use of crowns, bridges and implants. Electronic models permit this sculpting to occur digitally where a dental professional modifies the external surface of a tooth or appliance to create the definition for the desired tooth surface. FIG. 17 illustrates an electronic model of a patient's teeth having a canine tooth sculpted according to an embodiment of the present invention. In this figure, the tooth 1711 being shaped is highlighted and its outer surface is moved to create a desired surface. This sculpting is performed on the electronic model for the teeth 1701. Once a sculpted tooth has been created, various views of the tooth, both in its existing condition 1811 and its proposed condition 1812 may be presented. In this cross-section view, the before and after shape of the sculpted tooth 1811-1812. From all of this information, a dental professional may determine whether the proposed course of treatment produces a desired result using the electronic models prior to the initiation of any treatment on a patient)
Hultgren does not teach the orthodontic treatment plan including a plurality of tooth movement steps to move one or more teeth of the patient's dentition from a beginning configuration to a plurality of intermediate configurations, wherein each intermediate configuration includes a tooth volume geometry for one or more teeth of the patient's dentition; determining a change in tooth volume geometry at the plurality of intermediate configurations;
In the related field of invention, Sachdeva teaches the orthodontic treatment plan including a plurality of tooth movement steps to move one or more teeth of the patient's dentition from a beginning configuration to a plurality of intermediate configurations, (see para 22- The method and workstation further involves using the graphical user interface to c) move virtual teeth in a three-dimensional model of the patient from an initial orientation relative to the desired arch form, occlusal plane, midline, tooth position, reference tooth so as to arrive at a proposed tooth arrangement for treatment of the patient. see para 26-In yet another aspect of the invention, the unified workstation facilitates simulation of realizing the target treatment objective through a number of staged incremental or step-wise treatment plans. The treatment increments can be varied and its impact seen on associated teeth disposition and space management. A practitioner can use this process in an interactive and dynamic manner to evaluate several treatment scenarios. A major benefit of this invention is that it enables the practitioner and the patient to tailor the treatment plan that best suits the patient needs. See also para 66- Alternatively, the initial and final tooth positions can be used to derive data sets representing intermediate tooth positions)
wherein each intermediate configuration includes a tooth volume geometry for one or more teeth of the patient's dentition; (see para 63- To facilitate such modeling and simulations, teeth may be modeled as independent, individually moveable 3-dimensional virtual objects. see para 66- Alternatively, the initial and final tooth positions can be used to derive data sets representing intermediate tooth positions. See para 125- The knowledge database includes a 3D Geometry data file 316 that stores the 3D geometry data of the virtual patient model)
Therefore, 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 method of article of manufacture for utilizing electronic models of patient teeth in interdisciplinary dental treatment plans as disclosed by Hultgren to include the orthodontic treatment plan including a plurality of tooth movement steps to move one or more teeth of the patient's dentition from a beginning configuration to a plurality of intermediate configurations, wherein each intermediate configuration includes a tooth volume geometry for one or more teeth of the patient's dentition as taught by Sachdeva in the system of Hultgren in order to provide an effective, computer-based, integrated and interactive orthodontic treatment planning system that provides the necessary tools to allow the orthodontist to quickly and efficiently design a treatment plan for a patient. The treatment design also allows for real-time communication of the treatment plan to occur with the patient, or transmitted over a communications link and shared with a colleague or remote appliance manufacturing facility. Alternatively, the treatment planning can be performed remotely and a digital treatment plan sent to the orthodontist for review, interactive modification, or approval. (see para [0013-0014], Sachdeva)
The combination of Hultgren and Sachdeva does not teach teaches determining for each of at least a subset a of the plurality of intermediate configurations, change in tooth volume geometry;
In the related field of invention, Knopp teaches determining for each of at least a subset a of the plurality of intermediate configurations, change in tooth volume geometry; (see para 27- a plurality of intermediate tooth arrangements can then be prepared using such a modified plaster casting of the patient's teeth. see para 82- The original tooth's geometry is subtracted from that of the scaled tooth to leave a hollowed or shelled body. See para 97- FIG. 25 shows a subtraction of the cavity blocks 550 for the 100% tooth model and 550′ for the scaled tooth model to create a body defined by the area between the 100% scale and the 140 % scale models 552 and 554, respectively)
Therefore, 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 method of article of manufacture for utilizing electronic models of patient teeth in interdisciplinary dental treatment plans as disclosed by Hultgren to include determining for each of at least a subset a of the plurality of intermediate configurations, change in tooth volume geometry as taught by Knopp in the system of Hultgren and Sachdeva in order create a dental template to position an object on a patient's tooth includes digitizing the patient's tooth; adding virtual objects to predetermined three-dimensional positions on the digitized tooth; and fabricating the dental template to locate the object at the predetermined 3D position on the patient's tooth. The template used for etching or for positioning brackets on teeth. (see Abstract, Knopp)
Regarding claim 11
Hultgren teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instruction for planning a dental treatment for a patient's dentition that when executed by a processor cause a computer, (see para 36-A method, apparatus, and article of manufacture for providing dental treatment plans using electronic models, and more particularly to a method, apparatus, and article of manufacture for utilizing electronic models of patient teeth in interdisciplinary dental treatment plans is disclosed. FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a computing system constructed according to one embodiment of the present invention. see para 46-50 and fig 2-With reference to FIG. 2, an exemplary system for implementing the invention includes a general-purpose computing device in the form of a conventional personal computer 200, including a processor unit 212, a system memory 216, and a system bus 222 that couples various system components including the system memory 216 to the processor unit 212)) the method comprising:
generate an orthodontic treatment plan based on the virtual model of the patient's dentition, (see para 39-The electronic model is shared between the various dental health care providers 111-114 to develop and implement a treatment plan for the patient. As part of this process, each dental health care provider 111-114 may propose a course of treatment using the electronic model. Because the treatment plan being proposed is generated digitally, the electronic model is used to construct the expected results from the treatment being proposed. As is discussed in various of the above referenced and commonly assigned patent applications, the individual teeth within the model may be located and moved as desired. See also para 56-FIG. 8 illustrates an electronic model of upper 801 and lower 802 arches for an orthodontic treatment plan 800 constructed according to an embodiment of the present invention.)
the orthodontic treatment plan including a plurality of tooth movement steps to move one or more teeth of the patient's dentition see para 65- The eModel editing/manipulation module 2112 permits the user to identify individual teeth within the electronic module as well as separate and move the individual teeth relative to each other as part of a treatment plan.)
display the visualization. (See para 52- Using standard digital graphic programming techniques, results of a proposed treatment plan, shown in the form of a modified electronic model, may be superimposed upon these photographs to illustrate to the patient the likely results from a particular course of treatment. See para 640-65- To interact with the electronic models, the system includes an eModel display/manipulation module 211)
generating a prosthodontic treatment plan based on a virtual model of the patient's dentition and the determined change in tooth volume, the change in tooth volume corresponding to the a prosthodontic treatment; (see para 40-Additionally, the electronic models may be used to define and construct crown, bridge and implants that when fabricated may be inserted into a patient's mouth. FIG. 3 illustrates an electronic model of upper 301 (in fig 3 element -103) and lower 302 (in fig 3 element -102)-arches for a patient where a prep site for such a dental appliance may be inserted. Typically, the above-described orthodontic treatment plans are developed by one professional, an orthodontist, and the crown-based treatment plan is developed by a general dentist. See para 59-70-FIG. 15 illustrates an electronic model of upper 1501 and lower 1502 arches for a general dentist treatment plan constructed according to an embodiment of the present invention. In this option, typically tooth restoration and reconstruction is performed with the creation and use of crowns, bridges and implants. Electronic models permit this sculpting to occur digitally where a dental professional modifies the external surface of a tooth or appliance to create the definition for the desired tooth surface. FIG. 17 illustrates an electronic model of a patient's teeth having a canine tooth sculpted according to an embodiment of the present invention. In this figure, the tooth 1711 being shaped is highlighted and its outer surface is moved to create a desired surface. This sculpting is performed on the electronic model for the teeth 1701. Once a sculpted tooth has been created, various views of the tooth, both in its existing condition 1811 and its proposed condition 1812 may be presented. In this cross-section view, the before and after shape of the sculpted tooth 1811-1812. From all of this information, a dental professional may determine whether the proposed course of treatment produces a desired result using the electronic models prior to the initiation of any treatment on a patient)
Hultgren does not teach the orthodontic treatment plan including a plurality of tooth movement steps to move one or more teeth of the patient's dentition from a beginning configuration to a plurality of intermediate configurations, wherein each intermediate configuration includes a tooth volume geometry for one or more teeth of the patient's dentition; evaluate the restorative parameter at each of the plurality of intermediate configurations; determining a change in tooth volume geometry at the plurality of intermediate configurations;
In the related field of invention, Sachdeva teaches the orthodontic treatment plan including a plurality of tooth movement steps to move one or more teeth of the patient's dentition from a beginning configuration to a plurality of intermediate configurations, (see para 22- The method and workstation further involves using the graphical user interface to c) move virtual teeth in a three-dimensional model of the patient from an initial orientation relative to the desired arch form, occlusal plane, midline, tooth position, reference tooth so as to arrive at a proposed tooth arrangement for treatment of the patient. see para 26-In yet another aspect of the invention, the unified workstation facilitates simulation of realizing the target treatment objective through a number of staged incremental or step-wise treatment plans. The treatment increments can be varied and its impact seen on associated teeth disposition and space management. A practitioner can use this process in an interactive and dynamic manner to evaluate several treatment scenarios. A major benefit of this invention is that it enables the practitioner and the patient to tailor the treatment plan that best suits the patient needs. See also para 66- Alternatively, the initial and final tooth positions can be used to derive data sets representing intermediate tooth positions)
wherein each intermediate configuration includes a tooth volume geometry for one or more teeth of the patient's dentition; (see para 63- To facilitate such modeling and simulations, teeth may be modeled as independent, individually moveable 3-dimensional virtual objects. see para 66- Alternatively, the initial and final tooth positions can be used to derive data sets representing intermediate tooth positions. See para 125- The knowledge database includes a 3D Geometry data file 316 that stores the 3D geometry data of the virtual patient model)
evaluate a restorative parameter at each of the plurality of intermediate configurations; see para 22- The method and workstation further involves using the graphical user interface to a) evaluate space between the virtual teeth and arch length requirements. See para 197-198- After the user has completed the task of managing space between the virtual teeth in the proposed arrangement; the user is able to cycle back and repeat any of the previous steps by activating the icons on the lower left portion of the display and entering into the appropriate displays and making further adjustments in the proposed arrangement.
Therefore, 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 method of article of manufacture for utilizing electronic models of patient teeth in interdisciplinary dental treatment plans as disclosed by Hultgren to include the orthodontic treatment plan including a plurality of tooth movement steps to move one or more teeth of the patient's dentition from a beginning configuration to a plurality of intermediate configurations, wherein each intermediate configuration includes a tooth volume geometry for one or more teeth of the patient's dentition and evaluate a restorative parameter at each of the plurality of intermediate configurations as taught by Sachdeva in the system of Hultgren in order to provide an effective, computer-based, integrated and interactive orthodontic treatment planning system that provides the necessary tools to allow the orthodontist to quickly and efficiently design a treatment plan for a patient. The treatment design also allows for real-time communication of the treatment plan to occur with the patient, or transmitted over a communications link and shared with a colleague or remote appliance manufacturing facility. Alternatively, the treatment planning can be performed remotely and a digital treatment plan sent to the orthodontist for review, interactive modification, or approval. (see para [0013-0014], Sachdeva)
The combination of Hultgren and Sachdeva does not teach teaches determine for each of at least a subset a of the plurality of intermediate configurations, change in tooth volume geometry;
In the related field of invention, Knopp teaches determine for each of at least a subset a of the plurality of intermediate configurations, change in tooth volume geometry; (see para 27- a plurality of intermediate tooth arrangements can then be prepared using such a modified plaster casting of the patient's teeth. see para 82- The original tooth's geometry is subtracted from that of the scaled tooth to leave a hollowed or shelled body. See para 97- FIG. 25 shows a subtraction of the cavity blocks 550 for the 100% tooth model and 550′ for the scaled tooth model to create a body defined by the area between the 100% scale and the 140 % scale models 552 and 554, respectively)
Therefore, 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 method of article of manufacture for utilizing electronic models of patient teeth in interdisciplinary dental treatment plans as disclosed by Hultgren to include determining for each of at least a subset a of the plurality of intermediate configurations, change in tooth volume geometry as taught by Knopp in the system of Hultgren and Sachdeva in order create a dental template to position an object on a patient's tooth includes digitizing the patient's tooth; adding virtual objects to predetermined three-dimensional positions on the digitized tooth; and fabricating the dental template to locate the object at the predetermined 3D position on the patient's tooth. The template used for etching or for positioning brackets on teeth. (see Abstract, Knopp)
Regarding claim 2
The combination of Hultgren, Sachdeva and Knopp teaches the method of claim 1. Hultgren further teaches wherein generating the visualization of the change in tooth volume geometry includes generating an overlay. (See para 52-Using standard digital graphic programming techniques, results of a proposed treatment plan, shown in the form of a modified electronic model, may be superimposed upon these photographs to illustrate to the patient the likely results from a particular course of treatment. See para 59-70-FIG. 15 illustrates an electronic model of upper 1501 and lower 1502 arches for a general dentist treatment plan constructed according to an embodiment of the present invention. In this option, typically tooth restoration and reconstruction is performed with the creation and use of crowns, bridges and implants. Electronic models permit this sculpting to occur digitally where a dental professional modifies the external surface of a tooth or appliance to create the definition for the desired tooth surface. FIG. 17 illustrates an electronic model of a patient's teeth having a canine tooth sculpted according to an embodiment of the present invention. In this figure, the tooth 1711 being shaped is highlighted and its outer surface is moved to create a desired surface. This sculpting is performed on the electronic model for the teeth 1701. Once a sculpted tooth has been created, various views of the tooth, both in its existing condition 1811 and its proposed condition 1812 may be presented. In this cross-section view, the before and after shape of the sculpted tooth 1811-1812. From all of this information, a dental professional may determine whether the proposed course of treatment produces a desired result using the electronic models prior to the initiation of any treatment on a patient)
Regarding claim 12
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 2, and are rejected with the same rationale in view of the rejection of claim 11, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 3
The combination of Hultgren, Sachdeva and Knopp teaches the method of claim 1. Hultgren further teaches wherein generating the visualization of the change in tooth volume geometry includes superimposing a modified tooth volume geometry with an unmodified tooth volume geometry. (See para 62- FIG. 18 illustrates a cross-section view from an electronic model of an patient's teeth having a canine tooth sculpted according to an embodiment of the present invention. Once a sculpted tooth has been created, various views of the tooth, both in its existing condition 1811 and its proposed condition 1812 may be presented. In this cross-section view, the before and after shape of the sculpted tooth 1811-1812 are shown in relation to the opposing tooth 1813. From all of this information, a dental professional may determine whether the proposed course of treatment produces a desired result using the electronic models prior to the initiation of any treatment on a patient. This analysis may also be updated at various points along a treatment plan to ensure that the course of treatment will ultimately obtain the desired results.)
Regarding claim 13
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 3, and are rejected with the same rationale in view of the rejection of claim 11, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 4
The combination of Hultgren, Sachdeva and Knopp teaches the method of claim 1. Hultgren further teaches wherein generating the visualization of the change in tooth volume geometry includes superimposing a modified tooth volume geometry over an unmodified tooth volume geometry. (see para 62- FIG. 18 illustrates a cross-section view from an electronic model of an patient's teeth having a canine tooth sculpted according to an embodiment of the present invention. Once a sculpted tooth has been created, various views of the tooth, both in its existing condition 1811 and its proposed condition 1812 may be presented. In this cross-section view, the before and after shape of the sculpted tooth 1811-1812 are shown in relation to the opposing tooth 1813. From all of this information, a dental professional may determine whether the proposed course of treatment produces a desired result using the electronic models prior to the initiation of any treatment on a patient. This analysis may also be updated at various points along a treatment plan to ensure that the course of treatment will ultimately obtain the desired results.)
Regarding claim 14
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 4, and are rejected with the same rationale in view of the rejection of claim 11, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 5
The combination of Hultgren, Sachdeva and Knopp teaches the method of claim 1. Hultgren further teaches wherein generating the visualization of the change in tooth volume geometry includes generating a prosthodontic geometry based on the change in tooth volume geometry. (See para 59-62-FIG. 15 illustrates an electronic model of upper 1501 and lower 1502 arches for a general dentist treatment plan constructed according to an embodiment of the present invention. In this option, typically tooth restoration and reconstruction is performed with the creation and use of crowns, bridges and implants. Electronic models permit this sculpting to occur digitally where a dental professional modifies the external surface of a tooth or appliance to create the definition for the desired tooth surface. FIG. 18 illustrates a cross-section view from an electronic model of an patient's teeth having a canine tooth sculpted according to an embodiment of the present invention. Once a sculpted tooth has been created, various views of the tooth, both in its existing condition 1811 and its proposed condition 1812 may be presented. In this cross-section view, the before and after shape of the sculpted tooth 1811-1812 are shown in relation to the opposing tooth 1813. From all of this information, a dental professional may determine whether the proposed course of treatment produces a desired result using the electronic models prior to the initiation of any treatment on a patient. This analysis may also be updated at various points along a treatment plan to ensure that the course of treatment will ultimately obtain the desired results.)
Regarding claim 15
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 5, and are rejected with the same rationale in view of the rejection of claim 11, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 6
The combination of Hultgren, Sachdeva and Knopp teaches the method of claim 1. Hultgren further teaches wherein generating the visualization of the change in tooth volume geometry includes generating a visualization , both in its existing condition 1811 and its proposed condition 1812 may be presented. In this cross-section view, the before and after shape of the sculpted tooth 1811-1812 are shown in relation to the opposing tooth 1813. From all of this information, a dental professional may determine whether the proposed course of treatment produces a desired result using the electronic models prior to the initiation of any treatment on a patient. This analysis may also be updated at various points along a treatment plan to ensure that the course of treatment will ultimately obtain the desired results.)
Hultgren does not teach material removal geometry.
Sachdeva further teaches material removal geometry. (See para 177- By activating icon 692, the user can manage the spacing between teeth by having all spacing between teeth to be equal. By activating icon 693, the user invokes a collision detection algorithm that prevents the user from moving teeth in a manner such that a tooth collides with another tooth, either in the same arch or in the opposing arch. The software allows for interproximal reduction by morphing the tooth shape to match the available space, using a simple morphing algorithm that shrinks the tooth in two or three dimensions. See para 209-Different ways to address such a problem include extraction of teeth in the arch with the excess tooth material (usually one mandibular incisor), interproximal stripping, compromising the angulation of some teeth so they can occupy a larger or a smaller space in the arch, or increasing the mesiodistal tooth size in the arch with the deficiency in tooth material (build-ups).
Therefore, 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 method of article of manufacture for utilizing electronic models of patient teeth in interdisciplinary dental treatment plans as disclosed by Hultgren to include material removal geometry as taught by Sachdeva in the system of Hultgren and Knopp in order to provide an effective, computer-based, integrated and interactive orthodontic treatment planning system that provides the necessary tools to allow the orthodontist to quickly and efficiently design a treatment plan for a patient. The treatment design also allows for real-time communication of the treatment plan to occur with the patient, or transmitted over a communications link and shared with a colleague or remote appliance manufacturing facility. Alternatively, the treatment planning can be performed remotely and a digital treatment plan sent to the orthodontist for review, interactive modification, or approval. (see para [0013-0014], Sachdeva)
Regarding claim 16
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 6, and are rejected with the same rationale in view of the rejection of claim 11, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 7
The combination of Hultgren, Sachdeva and Knopp teaches the method of claim 1. Hultgren further teaches wherein generating the visualization of the change in tooth volume geometry includes generating a visualization of form of a modified electronic model, may be superimposed upon these photographs to illustrate to the patient the likely results from a particular course of treatment. See para 62- various views of the tooth, both in its existing condition 1811 and its proposed condition 1812 may be presented. In this cross-section view, the before and after shape of the sculpted tooth 1811-1812 are shown.
Hultgren does not teach material addition geometry.
Sachdeva further teaches material addition geometry. (See para 185-The teeth can be morphed accordingly to simulate the change in shape either through reduction in size or buildup in size as necessitated by the treatment. See para 209-A tooth size discrepancy may cause difficulties in achieving an ideal overjet and overbit or arriving at a good intercuspation during the final stages of orthodontic treatment. Different ways to address such a problem include extraction of teeth in the arch with the excess tooth material (usually one mandibular incisor), interproximal stripping, compromising the angulation of some teeth so they can occupy a larger or a smaller space in the arch, or increasing the mesiodistal tooth size in the arch with the deficiency in tooth material (build-ups).)
Therefore, 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 method of article of manufacture for utilizing electronic models of patient teeth in interdisciplinary dental treatment plans as disclosed by Hultgren to include material addition geometry as taught by Sachdeva in the system of Hultgren and Knopp in order to provide an effective, computer-based, integrated and interactive orthodontic treatment planning system that provides the necessary tools to allow the orthodontist to quickly and efficiently design a treatment plan for a patient. The treatment design also allows for real-time communication of the treatment plan to occur with the patient, or transmitted over a communications link and shared with a colleague or remote appliance manufacturing facility. Alternatively, the treatment planning can be performed remotely and a digital treatment plan sent to the orthodontist for review, interactive modification, or approval. (see para [0013-0014], Sachdeva)
Regarding claim 17
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 7, and are rejected with the same rationale in view of the rejection of claim 11, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 8
The combination of Hultgren, Sachdeva and Knopp teaches the method of claim 1. Hultgren further teaches setting a first of the plurality of intermediate configurations to begin prosthodontic treatment, (see para 40-42-Additionally, the electronic models may be used to define and construct crown, bridge and implants that when fabricated may be inserted into a patient's mouth. The modifications represent the results for a course of treatment and may include removal, movement, and restoration of one or more teeth. The modifications are made within the electronic model data file. See para 62-63- a dental professional may determine whether the proposed course of treatment produces a desired result using the electronic models prior to the initiation of any treatment on a patient. This analysis may also be updated at various points along a treatment plan to ensure that the course of treatment will ultimately obtain the desired results. FIG. 19 illustrates a set of electronic models 1901-1903 of a patient's teeth for various treatment options according to an embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 20 illustrates another set of electronic models 2001-2003 of a patient's teeth for various treatment options according to an embodiment of the present invention. See para 70-A desired treatment plan is selected in module 2417 where the appropriate dental professional implements the selected treatment plan in module 2418 before the processing ends 2402.)
the first of the plurality of intermediate configurations satisfying a constraint on a restorative parameter; (see para 55- The location and size of various teeth 711-718 are illustrated. Because the electronic model is a digital representation of the patient's impression, measurements for the size and location of teeth may be directly obtained. This information may be used in the development of treatment plans. For example, FIG. 13 illustrates measurements for space available in an upper arch 1301 between two points 1311-1312, while FIG. 14 illustrates measurements for space needed in an upper arch 1401 for two teeth 1402-1403 based on three measurement points 1411-1413, for a particular treatment plan being proposed by a dental professional. These measurements and options may be repeated for as many proposed treatment plans developed by one or more dental professionals. See para 59- a replacement tooth is created to fill the space identified in FIGS. 9 and 11 above. Tooth creation may be performed using a library of tooth crown designs, may be performed by manually sculpting a tooth from a properly sized block of space, may be performed by tooth mirroring in which an existing tooth from the patient is used as a basis for designing a replacement tooth, and may be performed using a parametric model for teeth that is scaled to fit the available space.)
fabricating at least one of: a preparation guide according to the prosthodontic treatment plan. (see para 68-71- The server processing system 2301 also includes a rapid prototyping interface module 2314 to provide the STL files needed by fabrication facilities 104 to manufacture various appliances and components. While some of the above-described embodiments of the present invention describe a system and method for constructing dental crowns, bridges and implants using a lost-wax process, one skilled in the art will recognize that other methods of manufacture of the dental devices are possible. The present invention allows fabrication of fixed and removable prosthodontic prosthesis such as copings, crowns, inlays, onlays, veneers, bridges, frameworks, implants, abutments, surgical stents, full or partial dentures and other hybrid fixed prosthesis for dental applications. See para 56- FIG. 8 shows an arrangement of teeth according to the proposed plan)
Hultgren does not teach fabricating at least one of: a series of orthodontic aligners based on the orthodontic treatment plan from the beginning configuration to the first of the plurality of intermediate configurations.
.
However, Knopp further teaches fabricating at least one of: a series of orthodontic aligners based on the orthodontic treatment plan from the beginning configuration to the first of the plurality of intermediate configurations, (see para see para 0005- The treatment to be planned in advance and a plurality of polymeric shell appliances are fabricated at the outset of treatment. See para 27-28- a plurality of intermediate tooth arrangements can then be prepared using such a modified plaster casting of the patient's teeth. The different arrangements can be used to prepare the template)
Therefore, 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 method of article of manufacture for utilizing electronic models of patient teeth in interdisciplinary dental treatment plans as disclosed by Hultgren to include fabricating at least one of: a series of orthodontic aligners based on the orthodontic treatment plan from the beginning configuration to the first of the plurality of intermediate configurations as taught by Knopp in the system of Hultgren and Sachdeva in order create a dental template to position an object on a patient's tooth includes digitizing the patient's tooth; adding virtual objects to predetermined three-dimensional positions on the digitized tooth; and fabricating the dental template to locate the object at the predetermined 3D position on the patient's tooth. The template used for etching or for positioning brackets on teeth. (see Abstract, Knopp)
Regarding claim 18
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 8, and are rejected with the same rationale in view of the rejection of claim 11, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 9
The combination of Hultgren, Sachdeva and Knopp teaches the method of claim 1. Hultgren does not teach wherein the restorative parameter comprises a time for performing the dental treatment, and wherein the orthodontic treatment plan is modified according to a constraint on the time for the dental treatment.
However, Sachdeva further teaches wherein the restorative parameter comprises a time for performing the dental treatment, and wherein the orthodontic treatment plan is modified according to a constraint on the time for the dental treatment. (See para 007-008- Additionally, a number of measurements, e.g., available space between teeth, are also often done manually. Generally, these steps are time consuming and prone to inherent inaccuracies. Furthermore, the practitioner has to contend with the biological interdependencies within the patient, which introduces constraints eliminating certain treatment options that would otherwise be acceptable, between the soft tissue, the hard tissue, and the teeth. And the patient has no choice and does not know that treatment time could be significantly reduced if proper planning was done. see para 24-26- If at any step, the results are not satisfactory, then one or more of the previous steps might be revisited and appropriate adjustments made. In this manner the entire process is iterative and closed-loop. Additionally, it is possible to stage treatment and compare progress against the staged treatment. The treatment plan can be actuated or initiated at any point in treatment to respond to any change that may occur. In yet another aspect of the invention, the unified workstation facilitates simulation of realizing the target treatment objective through a number of staged incremental or step-wise treatment plans.)
Therefore, 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 method of article of manufacture for utilizing electronic models of patient teeth in interdisciplinary dental treatment plans as disclosed by Hultgren to include wherein the restorative parameter comprises a time for performing the dental treatment, and wherein the orthodontic treatment plan is modified according to a constraint on the time for the dental treatment as taught by Sachdeva in the system of Hultgren and Knopp in order to provide an effective, computer-based, integrated and interactive orthodontic treatment planning system that provides the necessary tools to allow the orthodontist to quickly and efficiently design a treatment plan for a patient. The treatment design also allows for real-time communication of the treatment plan to occur with the patient, or transmitted over a communications link and shared with a colleague or remote appliance manufacturing facility. Alternatively, the treatment planning can be performed remotely and a digital treatment plan sent to the orthodontist for review, interactive modification, or approval. (see para [0013-0014], Sachdeva)
Regarding claim 19
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 9, and are rejected with the same rationale in view of the rejection of claim 11, mutatis mutandis.
6. Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hultgren et al. (PUB NO: US20050010450A1) in view of Sachdeva et al. "(PUB NO: US20040029068A1) and further in view of Knopp et al. (PUB NO: US 20040253562 A1) and still further in view of Wen et al. (PUB NO: US 20060275736 A1)
Regarding claim 10
The combination of Hultgren, Sachdeva and Knopp teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Hultgren, Sachdeva and Knopp does not teach wherein the restorative parameter comprises an amount of tooth structure removal, and wherein the orthodontic treatment plan is modified according to a constraint on the amount of tooth structure removed.
In the related field of invention, Wen teaches wherein the restorative parameter comprises an amount of tooth structure removal, and wherein the orthodontic treatment plan is modified according to a constraint on the amount of tooth structure removed. (see para 258-259-The user interface may also be configured to provide information to the orthodontist with regards to interproximal reduction of the tooth. The information provided may advise the orthodontist on how much material to remove (e.g., shave, etc.) from the tooth to allow the tooth or its adjacent member to rotate. The computer software may also recommend to the orthodontist on the specific location to perform interproximal reductions. In one variation, the software is configured with a safety value such that the maximum grinding recommended by the software cannot exceed a predefined value. For example, the maximum grinding may be set at 0.5 mm. The interproximal reduction (e.g., suggestions provided to a practitioner) may be based on movements of the digital dental model made by the user, and may take into account other boundary conditions, as described further below. In one example, as a tooth being rotated within the digital dental arch model overlaps an adjacent tooth, the software will calculate the amount of recommended interproximal reduction based on the location of the overlap and/or the amount of overlap. In some variations, the interface may include a choice to calculate or allow interproximal reductions. The software may also include output describing the recommended interproximal reductions. In some variations, the software may allow the user to input interproximal reductions between teeth as text (e.g., rather than having to manually move the teeth in a digital dental model to reflect the interproximal reduction). Thus, the user interface may include an icon or menu item to allow the digital modeling of interproximal reduction.)
Therefore, 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 method of article of manufacture for utilizing electronic models of patient teeth in interdisciplinary dental treatment plans as disclosed by Hultgren to include wherein the restorative parameter comprises an amount of tooth structure removal, and wherein the orthodontic treatment plan is modified according to a constraint on the amount of tooth structure removed as taught by Wen in the system of Hultgren, Sachdeva and Knopp in order to provide information to the orthodontist with regards to interproximal reduction of the tooth. The information provided may advise the orthodontist on how much material to remove (e.g., shave, etc.) from the tooth to allow the tooth or its adjacent member to rotate, thus generate a guide or instructions for forming a guide that can be used by a practitioner to attach the protrusions, buttons or attachments to the subject's teeth. (see para [0258-0260], Wen)
Regarding claim 20
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 10, and are rejected with the same rationale in view of the rejection of claim 11, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abolfathi et al. US20050208449A1
ii. Discussing the method for repositioning the teeth of a patient by providing a digital model of each tooth of the patient; determining one or more root parameters from the digital model; and digitally moving one or more tooth models and evaluating a treatment outcome based on one or more root movement clinical constraints.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
7. All claims 1-20 are rejected.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to 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, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights