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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim[ 1 ] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the second difference in tooth mass comprising the tooth mass reduction without the tooth mass addition” in lines 22-24. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tooth mass reduction” and “the tooth mass addition” where there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because the second alternative is referencing limitation of the first alternative when the first alternative is not required. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “the second difference in tooth mass comprising a tooth mass reduction without a tooth mass addition”.
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “the first and second heatmaps each show locations and amount of the tooth mass reduction” in lines 1-2 wherein applicant is positively claiming both the first and second heatmaps. However, applicant claims using either the first heatmap or second heatmap. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the limitation for claim 7 applies to either heatmaps.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “the first and second heatmaps each comprise” in lines 1-2 wherein applicant is positively claiming both the first and second heatmaps. However, applicant claims using either the first heatmap or second heatmap. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the limitation for claim 9 applies to either heatmaps.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “the first and second heatmaps” in lines 1-2 wherein applicant is positively claiming both the first and second heatmaps. However, applicant claims using either the first heatmap or second heatmap. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the limitation for claim 11 applies to either heatmaps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (US 20170372032 A1) in view of Sandholm (US 20160220200 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Kuo discloses a method (Abstract) comprising:
receiving a treatment plan comprising a target tooth arrangement and a plurality of intermediate tooth arrangements configured to adjust a patient’s teeth from an initial tooth arrangement toward the target tooth arrangement, wherein the target tooth arrangement comprises a change in mass of at least one tooth (Abstract, Par. 62, and 93-94; Fig. 13 specifically disclosed changing the mass of the tooth where portion 24 is being removed from the tooth 20 as discussed in Par. 94; Par. 113 discloses that the intermediate tooth arrangement can be considered the initial tooth arrangement); and
outputting a graphical user interface comprising a visualization of the treatment plan (Par. 95; Par. 113 discloses that the intermediate tooth arrangement can be considered the initial tooth arrangement), wherein the visualization comprises:
a plurality of digital models, each digital model representing a corresponding intermediate tooth arrangement of the plurality of intermediate tooth arrangements (Par. 95 discloses that first configuration- which can be considered the intermediate arrangement- to be displayed and overlaid with the final configuration; Par. 64 discuses having a digital model of the intermediate configuration that can be used to develop the final digital model and configuration. Further, it is disclosed that the final model may be evaluated and iterated again until the desired final model is achieved resulting in multiple intermediate configurations/models to be made; Par. 73 discloses that the intermediate and final configurations can be superimposed on one another; Par. 113 discloses that the practitioner can manipulate the movement of the virtual model to achieve the final configuration. This configuration would be achieved by including modeling several intermediate stages/configurations/models).
Kuo however is silent to the visualization comprises a heatmap overlay, wherein the heatmap overlay is configured to display, in response to user input: a first heatmap overlaid onto at least one digital model of the plurality of digital models, wherein the heatmap shows a difference in tooth mass between the target tooth arrangement and the corresponding at least one intermediate tooth arrangement of the at least one digital model, the first difference in tooth mass comprising tooth mass addition and tooth mass reduction, or a second heatmap overlaid onto the at least one digital model of the plurality of digital models, wherein the second heatmap shows a second difference in tooth mass between the target tooth arrangement and the corresponding at least one intermediate tooth arrangement of the at least one digital model, the second difference in tooth mass comprising the tooth mass reduction without the tooth mass addition.
Kuo does disclose the virtual model may be generated as disclosed as S10 and can be transformed from the beginning configuration to an intermediate configuration and finally a final configuration as disclosed as S12 and S14 (Par. 78). Kuo also discloses the intermediate tooth arrangement to be the initial tooth arrangement (Par. 113). In addition, Kuo provides teaching of using a map overlaid onto at least one digital model of the plurality of digital models, wherein the map shows a different in tooth mass between the target tooth arrangement and the corresponding at least one intermediate tooth arrangement of the at least one digital model (Par. 95 discloses that first configuration- which can be considered the intermediate arrangement- to be displayed and overlaid with the final configuration; Par. 64 discuses having a digital model of the intermediate configuration that can be used to develop the final digital model and configuration. Further, it is disclosed that the final model may be evaluated and iterated again until the desired final model is achieved resulting in multiple intermediate configurations/models to be made; Par. 73 discloses that the intermediate and final configurations can be superimposed on one another; Par. 113 discloses that the practitioner can manipulate the movement of the virtual model to achieve the final configuration. This configuration would be achieved by including modeling several intermediate stages/configurations/models). Kuo discloses a change in mass which includes an addition and reduction as well as solely a reduction (Par. 64).
Sandholm discloses a method in the same field of endeavor and further discloses visualizing the differences in a dentition by using a heatmap overlay to present changes quantitatively (Fig. 6A; Par. 30 and 47). Sandholm discloses a visualization comprising a heatmap overlaid a digital model, the heat map showing a difference in tooth mass between two different stages of dental treatment (Par. 30 and 47 discloses comparing two digital models taken at different times by using a heat map overlay).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art to have the visualization of Kuo to include using a heatmap overlay as taught by Sandholm to present changes of the tooth arrangement quantitatively. As such, the combination of the teaching of Kuo, and Sandholm would teach a heatmap overlay, wherein the heatmap overlay is configured to display, in response to user input: a first heatmap overlaid onto at least one digital model of the plurality of digital models, wherein the heatmap shows a difference in tooth mass between the target tooth arrangement and the corresponding at least one intermediate tooth arrangement of the at least one digital model, the first difference in tooth mass comprising tooth mass addition and tooth mass reduction.
Re. Claim 2, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Kuo further discloses the change in the mass of the at least one tooth comprises a tooth mass addition, a tooth mass reduction, or a combination thereof (Par. 94 which discloses applying a veneer which can be considered a tooth mass addition).
Re. Claim 3, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Kuo further discloses the target tooth arrangement comprises at least one restorative object applied to the at least one tooth (Par. 94 which discloses applying a veneer which can be considered a tooth mass addition a restorative object).
Re. Claim 4, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 3, wherein Kuo further discloses the at least one restorative object comprises one or more of the following: a crown, a veneer, edge bonding, a composite, an implant, or a prosthetic (Par. 94 which discloses applying a veneer).
Re. Claim 7, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the combination discloses the first heatmap shows locations and amounts of tooth mass reduction. Kuo provides teaching in Par. 93-94 the manipulation of the virtual model to include tooth reduction for the desired restorative outcome and can be visualized in Figs. 13-14. Though Kuo is silent to using a heatmap, Sandholm discloses using heatmaps to visually show the quantitative change of the model in Fig. 6A and Par. 30 and 47. As such, the combination would provide teaching of the heatmap shows locations and amounts of tooth mass reduction to allow a visual representation of the desired tooth shape to apply the desired restorative outcome.
Re. Claim 8, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the combination discloses the first heatmap shows locations and amounts of tooth mass addition. Kuo provides teaching in Par. 93-94 the manipulation of the virtual model to include tooth mass addition (i.e. the veneers) and can be visualized in Figs. 13-15 as the models are overlaid. Though Kuo is silent to using a heatmap, Sandholm discloses using heatmaps to visually show the quantitative change of the model in Fig. 6A and Par. 30 and 47. As such, the combination would provide teaching of the heatmap shows locations and amounts of tooth mass addition to allow a visual representation of the desired restorative outcome.
Re. Claim 9, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Sandholm discloses the heatmap comprises a plurality of colors representing distances between a surface of the at least one intermediate tooth arrangement and a surface of the target tooth arrangement (Par. 13, 30-32, 42 and 47-48; Fig. 6A-7).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the heatmap of Kuo, and Sandholm to comprise a plurality of colors representing distances between a surface of the at least one intermediate tooth arrangement and a surface of the target tooth arrangement as taught by Sandholm to visually present the changes of the teeth throughout the treatment plan.
Re. Claim 10, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 9, wherein Sandholm further discloses the plurality of colors of the first heatmap comprise a first set of colors representing tooth mass reduction grades (Par. 47).
Sandholm provides teaching that changes in the tooth form can be visualized in a heat map and can be color coded based on the changes in teeth (Par. 47). It should also be noted that Kuo teaches additions, reductions and overlaying to display them (Par. 93-95). The heatmap would as such show the differences in tooth mass making it obvious to show positive and negative values in a heatmap as taught by showing both in an overlaid image of Kuo. Thus, the combination of Kuo and Sandholm’s teaching provides the teaching of the limitation regarding a second set of colors representing tooth mass addition grades.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the plurality of colors of Kuo, and Sandholm to have the first heatmap comprise a first set of colors representing tooth mass reduction grades, and a second set of colors representing tooth mass addition grades taught by Kuo and Sandholm to provide a visual guide as to what changes will be made during the treatment plan.
Re. Claim 11, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
Kuo discloses additions, reductions and overlaying to display them (Par. 93-95). Further, Kuo provides teaching of using a map overlaid onto at least one digital model of the plurality of digital models, wherein the map shows a different in tooth mass between the target tooth arrangement and the corresponding at least one intermediate tooth arrangement of the at least one digital model (Par. 64 discloses that the digital models of the intermediate configuration can be used to develop the final digital model. This would entail that the final model developed would be evaluated to determine if it matches the patient’s desires and would be reiterated again until the final desired model is achieved. This would result in developing a plurality of intermediate configuration to lead to the final configuration. It is then disclosed that the intermediate step and the final step can be superimposed onto one another in Par. 73.).
Sanholm discloses the heatmap showing a difference in tooth mass between intermediate tooth arrangements and target tooth arrangement (Par. 47).
The combination of Kuo and Sanholm provides teaching of using heatmap overlays to present the differences in tooth mass between multiple models to display the changes of the tooth mass throughout the different stages in the treatment plan.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the first heatmap of Kuo, and Sandholm to show a difference in tooth mass between each of the plurality of intermediate tooth arrangements and the target tooth arrangement as taught by Kuo and Sandholm to provide a visual guide as to what changes will be made during the treatment plan.
Re. Claim 12, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 1, Kuo further comprising: receiving user input indicating a modification to the treatment plan (Par. 76). Sandholm provides teaching of the heatmap but is silent to updating the heatmap overlay based on the modification. However, one skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have the method of Kuo, and Sandholm to include updating the heatmap based on the modification to reflect the treatment plan being applied to the user.
Re. Claim 13, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 12, wherein Kuo further discloses the modification comprises one or more of the following: an adjustment to a position of a tooth, an addition of a restorative object to a tooth, a removal of a restorative object from a tooth, an adjustment to a position of a restorative object, an adjustment to a shape of a restorative object, or an adjustment to a gingival margin (Par. 76-78 discloses that the modification may be the adjustment to the tooth position to the desired final tooth position).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (US 20170372032 A1) in view of Sandholm (US 20160220200 A1) and Maraj (US 20180110590 A1).
Re. Claim 5, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 3, but are silent to the visualization comprises a restoratives model overlaid onto the at least one digital model and representing the at least one restorative object. Kuo does disclose in Par. 94 provides teaching of applying a veneer/restorative object to the tooth/teeth.
Maraj discloses a dental treatment in the same field of endeavor and further discloses visualizing the dental treatment where the different phases can be overlaid with the restorative object to allow users to see the aesthetic features before applying the treatment (Par. 35).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the visualization of Kuo, and Sandholm to comprise a restoratives model overlaid onto the at least one digital model and representing the at least one restorative object as taught by Maraj to allow users to see the aesthetic features before applying the treatment.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (US 20170372032 A1) in view of Sandholm (US 20160220200 A1), Maraj (US 20180110590 A1) and Jung (US 20140316750 A1
Re. Claim 6¸ Kuo, Sandholm, and Maraj discloses the method of claim 5, but are silent to receiving user input adjusting an opacity of the restoratives model.
Jung discloses a dental treatment in the same field of endeavor and further discloses overlaying a CT scan over a digital model where the scan’s opacity can be adjusted with a user input to verify the dental restoration procedure (Par. 40-41).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have visualization of Kuo, Sandholm, and Maraj to have it’s opacity adjusted using user input as taught by Jung to verify the dental restoration procedure.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (US 20170372032 A1) in view of Sandholm (US 20160220200 A1) and Wen (US 20220054232 A1).
Re. Claim 14, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 1, but are silent to the visualization comprises a patient image.
Wen discloses a dental treatment plan in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a visualization to include a 3D model of the teeth (Abstract; Par. 6-7) and a patient’s image to identify patient’s anatomical features (Abstract; Par. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the visualization of Kuo, and Sandholm to have a patient’s image as taught by Wen to aid in designing the desired smile and treatment plan to identify patient’s anatomical features.
Re. Claim 15, Kuo, Sandholm, and Wen discloses the method of claim 14, wherein Wen discloses the visualization shows one or more smile lines overlaid onto the patient image (Par. 131 discloses that the patient’s image would have the digital model superimposed where the digital model also comprises the smile arc and lip/smile lines; Par. 132 and 134 discloses the smile line being adjusted based on the changes to the teeth positioning; Fig. 33-35 and 37. Further, the smile lines can include not online the smile arc and lip lines, but also incisal edge line and horizontal line as shown in Fig. 37 and disclosed in Par. 133; Par. 97 discloses reference lines that can be generated upon the facial photo).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the visualization of Kuo, Sandholm and Wen show one or more smile lines overlaid onto the patient image as taught by Wen to aid in designing the desired smile and treatment plan to achieve such smile for the patient.
Re. Claim 16, Kuo, Sandholm, and Wen discloses the method of claim 15, wherein Wen discloses the one or more smile lines represent parameters of a target smile for the patient (Par. 127 and 130 discusses creating a smile score based on the smile arc and lines to develop the target patient smile).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the visualization of Kuo, Sandholm and Wen to have the one or more smile lines represent parameters of a target smile for the patient as taught by Wen to aid in designing the desired smile and treatment plan to achieve such smile for the patient.
Re. Claim 17, Kuo, Sandholm, and Wen discloses the method of claim 15, wherein Wen discloses the one or more smile lines comprise one or more of the following: a facial midline, an intercanine width line, a gingival line, an incisal edge line, a horizontal line, or a tooth outline (Par. 133 and Fig. 36/37 discloses the incisal edges and a horizontal line).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the visualization of Kuo, Sandholm and Wen to have the one or more smile lines to comprise an incisal edge line or horizontal line as taught by Wen to aid in designing the desired smile and treatment plan to achieve such smile for the patient.
Re. Claim 18, Kuo, Sandholm, and Wen discloses the method of claim 15, Wen further comprising receiving user input modifying the one or more smile lines (Par. 105).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Kuo, Sandholm, and Wen to include receiving user input modifying the one or more smile lines as taught by Wen to alter the treatment plan based on the desired smile lines of the patient.
Re. Claim 19, Kuo, and Sandholm discloses the method of claim 1, but are silent to the visualization comprises a composite image comprising the at least one digital model overlaid onto an image of the patient's face.
Wen discloses a dental treatment plan in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a visualization to include a 3D model of the teeth (Abstract; Par. 6-7) and a patient’s image to identify patient’s anatomical features (Abstract; Par. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the visualization of Kuo, and Sandholm to have a composite image comprising the at least one digital model overlaid onto an image of the patient's face as taught by Wen to aid in designing the desired smile and treatment plan to identify patient’s anatomical features.
Re. Claim 20, Kuo, Sandholm, and Wen discloses the method of claim 19, Sachdeva further comprising: receiving user input indicating a modification to the treatment plan, and updating the composite image based on the modification (Par. 105 and 107).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Kuo, Sandholm, and Wen to include receiving user input indicating a modification to the treatment plan, and updating the composite image based on the modification as taught by Wen to alter the treatment plan based on the desired smile lines of the patient.
Response to Arguments
Argument #1: Applicant argues that Sandholm is silent to providing a teaching of a first heatmap showing tooth mass addition and tooth mass reduction OR a second heatmap showing the tooth mass reduction without the tooth mass addition.
Response #1: Applicant’s argument is found to be unpersuasive as Sandholm is found to provide the general teaching of using heatmap to display changes in tooth masses where the teaching of presenting both the mass addition and tooth mass reduction OR solely the tooth mass reduction without the mass addition is found to be taught by Kuo. It should be noted that claim 1 solely requires having the first heatmap or the second heatmap and NOT both the maps. It is found that Kuo presents teaching a map showing either mass addition with tooth mass reduction OR solely tooth mass reduction (Par. 64 and 95).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY T TO whose telephone number is (571)272-0719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 - 4:30.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/HOLLY T. TO/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
2/4/2026
Prosecution Insights