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 .
Responsive to communication filed on 24 February 2023.
Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 05/05/2023 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 02/24/2023, along with the replacement drawing dated 04/06/2023, have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 02/24/2023 has been reviewed. It contains 122 words and 10 lines and has no legal phraseology. It is accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to due to the mention of “a reference denture that is being replaced”. While there are mentions of “a reference denture” in parent claims, there is no mention that the reference denture is being replaced by the physical denture being fabricated. For the purposes of this prosecution, the examiner will take any mentions of “a reference denture” as an existing denture that is being replaced by the denture being fabricated. A suggested fix would be to modify claim 1 to “…fabricating a physical denture that will replace the reference denture from the denture base digital model and the aligned denture library teeth using a rapid fabrication system with multiple colors
Claims 9 and 11 are objected to pertaining to the mention of “mapping colors… onto the surface of the reference denture”. As stated in the claim 8 objection, a reference denture is read as an existing denture (i.e. a physical object). Mapping colors obtained from a scan of the reference denture onto the very same reference denture is not utilized in this application. For the purposes of this prosecution, the examiner will take the mentions of “the reference denture” in claims 9 and 11 to be “the digital reference denture model”. Suggested fixes would be to modify claims 9 and 11 to “mapping colors from the color 3D scan or the one or more photographs of a surface of the reference denture” or “mapping colors from the color 3D scan or the one or more photographs onto a surface of the digital reference denture model.”
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durbin_2009 (US 2009/0133260 A1) in view of Steingart_2012 (US 2012/0179281 A1).
Claim 1. Durbin_2009 teaches “A method for fabricating dentures (Par. 7: “Systems and methods are disclosed to fabricate a restorative prosthesis”), the method comprising: acquiring a digital reference denture model of a reference denture for a patient (Par. 7: “The system includes a scanner to intra orally capture… a three dimensional (3D) shape of the dentition being reconstructed.”); acquiring color data for the digital reference denture model (Par. 7: “The system includes a scanner to intra orally capture color and translucency information…”); selecting a denture tooth library (Par. 17: “…the patient’s personalized tooth model library may be accessed…”) based on the digital reference denture model (Par. 17: “…by taking a 3D scan of the patient’s entire dentition… and then storing the scan data in the patient’s personalized tooth library.”); generating a denture base digital model based on the digital reference denture model and the aligned denture library teeth (Par. 16: “The data generated by the 3D intra-oral scanner is provided to a 3D image and dental modeling engine module that… renders the 3D shape of the dentition [to] be restored based upon data from the tooth morphology library); assigning colors to the denture base digital model and the aligned denture library teeth (Par. 19 “The dental imaging system 100 then selects or suggests the best material and color shade for the prosthesis (step 162)); fabricating a physical denture from the denture base digital model and the aligned denture library teeth using a rapid fabrication system (Par. 16: “…the 3D model of a prosthesis design is… electronically transferred to a… CAD/CAM system for fabrication of the physical prosthesis”).
While Durbin_2009 teaches selection of a tooth morphology library, Durbin_2009 does not explicitly teach “aligning denture library teeth from the selected denture tooth library to the digital reference denture model”.
While Durbin_2009 teaches the use of a rapid fabrication system to fabricate a physical denture, Durbin_2009 does not explicitly teach a rapid fabrication system “with multiple colors”.
Steingart_2012, however, teaches “aligning denture library teeth from the selected denture tooth library to the digital reference denture model” (Par. 33: “The design application includes a model of a custom denture base plate. The design application uses measurements…to select a set of virtual denture teeth and to place each of said virtual denture teeth in relation to said virtual denture base plate). The fabrication system of Steingart_2012 is one that contains “multiple colors” (Par. 170 “Models may be fabricated using additive manufacturing that can produce a physical replica of each voxel with its associated properties” NOTE: Properties include color, translucency, hardness, modulus, and dynamic modulus).
Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called 3D modelling and fabrication. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012. The rationale for doing so would have been that Durbin_2009 teaches to obtain color information and 3D shape of a dentition, create a 3D model based on said color information and 3D shape, and fabricate a physical prosthesis based on said 3D model. Steingart_2012 teaches to align library teeth to a 3D modeled denture base and also to use a rapid fabrication process with multiple colors to achieve a more aesthetically pleasing look of the fabricated prosthesis. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the 3D modeling and fabrication of Durbin_2009 with the aligning and multiple color fabrication method of Steingart_2012 to obtain a more aesthetically pleasing prosthesis (Durbin_2009 Par. 6: “…none of the existing systems can quantify translucency of the teeth and can therefore not accurately convey all of the necessary aesthetic information needed for a restoration”).
Claim 2. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 teach the limitations of claim 1. Durbin_2009 also teaches “colors are assigned to the denture base digital model based on the color data acquired for the digital reference denture model” (Par. 16: “…renders the 3D shape of the dentition [to] be restored based upon… a 3D scan of the patient’s dentition… to give an accurate color representation of the candidate prosthesis”).
Durbin_2009 does not teach “Fabrication of the physical denture by the rapid fabrication system is performed by applying the colors assigned to the denture base digital model using the multiple colors of the rapid fabrication system”.
Steingart_2012, however, teaches “Fabrication of the physical denture by the rapid fabrication system is performed by applying the colors assigned to the denture base digital model using the multiple colors of the rapid fabrications system” (Par. 40 “…a rapid prototyping machine is configured to fabricate… via additive manufacturing using the 3D voxel-based model. Properties of the voxels of the model correspond to properties of the voxels of the fabricated tooth”).
Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called 3D modelling and fabrication. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012. The rationale for doing so would have been that Durbin_2009 teaches applying color, acquired from a color scan, to a base digital model and Steingart_2012 teaches to fabricate a model by applying the properties (e.g. color) of each individual voxel to each physical voxel being fabricated. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the color assignment of Durbin_2009 and the color specific manufacturing of Steingart_2012 to obtain a more aesthetically pleasing and accurate fabrication.
Claim 6. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 teach the limitations of claim 2. Steingart_2012 also makes obvious “The denture base digital model comprises a plurality of voxels, and the color data is associated with the plurality of voxels” (Par. 169: “…each 3D point in space is modeled using voxels, and each voxel has multiple parameters including: color, …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the voxels with color values of Steingart_2012 within the 3D models of Durbin_2009 to obtain a more accurate 3D model and, thus, fabrication.
Claim 7. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 teach the limitations of claim 6. Steingart_2012 also makes obvious “The colors are assigned to the denture base digital model are determined based on blending of the color data associated with the plurality of voxels” (Par. 170: “…the 3D printer creates the object by varying the properties of each voxel, on a voxel-by-voxel basis, in accordance with the parameters (e.g., hardness, viscosity, or color) set in the voxel model”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the voxel blending of color values of Steingart_2012 within the 3D models of Durbin_2009 to obtain a more accurate 3D model and, thus, fabrication.
Claim 8. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 teach the limitations of claim 2. Durbin_2009 further teaches “The color data is applied to and stored in association with the digital reference denture model (Par. 21: “The above embodiment integrates color and translucency information along with the three dimensional shape…”) based on a color 3D scan or one or more photographs (Par. 19: “…the process performs an initial intra oral color measurement…”) of a reference denture that is being replaced by the physical denture that is being fabricated” (Par. 21: “The above embodiment integrates color and translucency information along with the three dimensional shape of the dentition being reconstructed.)
Claims 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durbin_2009 in view of Steingart_2012 in view of Schmidt-Krulig_2022 (WO 2022/269520 A1).
Claim 3. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 teach the limitations of claim 2. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 do not explicitly teach “The denture base digital model comprises a 3D mesh including polygons defined by vertices, and the color data is associated with at least some portions of the 3D mesh”.
Schmidt-Krulig_2022, however, teaches “The denture base digital model comprises a 3D mesh including polygons defined by vertices, and the color data is associated with at least some portions of the 3D mesh” (Par. 34: “…the 3D model comprises a 3D polygon mesh… and the color information may take the form of computed color values for the vertices of the polygon mesh”).
Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Schmidt-Krulig_2022 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called 3D modelling. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Schmidt-Krulig_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been to have another method of coloring the 3D models obtained from Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012, utilizing the colored 3D mesh of Schmidt-Krulig_2022.
Claim 4. Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Schmidt-Krulig_2022 teach the limitations of claim 3. Schmidt-Krulig_2022 further teaches “The color data is associated with at least some of the polygons included in the 3D mesh” (Par. 53: “…the techniques… can compute colors for flat areas inside the polygons of a polygon mesh…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the polygons with color values of Schmidt-Krulig_2022 within the 3D models of Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 since 3D models can be comprised of either voxels or polygons with vertices.
Claim 5. Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Schmidt-Krulig_2022 teach the limitations of claim 3. Schmidt-Krulig_2022 further teaches “The color data is associated with at least some of the vertices included in the 3D mesh” (Par. 34: “… and the color information may take the form of computed color values for the vertices of the polygon mesh”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the polygons with color values of Schmidt-Krulig_2022 within the 3D models of Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 since 3D models can be comprised of either voxels or polygons with vertices.
Claim 9. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 teach the limitations of claim 8. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 do not explicitly teach “Acquiring the color data comprises texture mapping colors from the color 3D scan or the one or more photographs onto a surface of the reference denture”.
Schmidt-Krulig_2022, however, teaches “Acquiring the color data comprises texture mapping colors from the color 3D scan or the one or more photographs onto a surface of the reference denture” (Par. 38: “…a digital texture, independent of the polygon mesh and containing color information, is constructed, which is then mapped to the polygon mesh”).
Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Schmidt-Krulig_2022 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called 3D modelling. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Schmidt-Krulig_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been to have another method of coloring the 3D models obtained from Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012, utilizing the colored 3D texture map of Schmidt-Krulig_2022.
Claim 10. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 teach the limitations of claim 8. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 do not explicitly teach “Acquiring the color data comprises mapping colors from the color 3D scan or the one or more photographs onto corresponding portions of the digital reference denture model”.
Schmidt-Krulig_2022, however, teaches “Acquiring the color data comprises mapping colors from the color 3D scan or the one or more photographs onto corresponding portions of the digital reference denture model” (Par. 39: “To map pixels of the texture image onto the 3D model, a pixel of the texture image (i.e. a “texel”) is identified for each visible pixel of the 3D model and then mapped to that point”).
Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Schmidt-Krulig_2022 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called 3D modelling. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Schmidt-Krulig_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been to have another method of coloring the 3D models obtained from Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012, utilizing the colored 3D texture map of Schmidt-Krulig_2022.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durbin_2009 in view of Steingart_2012 in view of Weiss_2021 (US 2021/0059796 A1).
Claim 11. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 teach the limitations of claim 8. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 do not teach “Mapping colors from the color 3D scan or the one or more photographs onto a surface of the reference denture; identifying damaged portions and undamaged portions of the reference denture; discarding a portion of the colors mapped onto damaged portions of the reference denture; and mapping remaining portions of the colors mapped onto undamaged portions of the reference denture onto the digital reference denture model”
Weiss_2021, however, teaches “Mapping colors from the color 3D scan or the one or more photographs onto a surface of the reference denture (Par. 156: “Two types of color info may be used, which may include viewfinder images and scan textures…” Par. 166: “A merging algorithm… may then merge together all of the… scans… to generate a virtual 3D model”); identifying damaged portions and undamaged portions of the reference denture (Par. 166: “…there will… be some difference between those scans… Such differences may be determined by identifying conflicting surfaces between overlapping areas of scans”); discarding a portion of the colors mapped onto damaged portions of the reference denture; mapping remaining portions of the colors mapped onto undamaged portions of the reference denture onto the digital reference denture model (Par. 166: “The merging algorithm may average some differences in data between the scans, and for other differences some data may be discarded.”; Par. 178: “… a user may mark… the unacceptable region of the 3D model”; Par. 179: “The intraoral scan application may then apply eraser logic to delete, erase or otherwise remove the marked portion from the 3D model.”)
Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Weiss_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called 3D modelling. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Weiss_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been to take the color scanned 3D models of Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 and apply the marking and deletion methods of Weiss_2021 to identify unwanted portions of a 3D scan.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durbin_2009 in view of Steingart_2012 in view of Weiss_2021 in view of Freeman_2019 (US 10176527 B1).
Claim 12. Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012 and Weiss_2021 teach the limitations of claim 11. Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012 and Weiss_2021 do not teach “The damaged portions of the reference denture are identified based on features, shapes, or other comparisons to one or more denture library teeth”
Freeman_2019, however, teaches “The damaged portions of the reference denture are identified based on features, shapes, or other comparisons to one or more denture library teeth” (Par. 96: “… the processor operates to analyze the 3D model… to estimate a condition of the structure… this may include comparing the model to other models” NOTE: See also Fig. 6 Block 640).
Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, Weiss_2021, and Freeman_2019 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called 3D modelling. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, Weiss_2021, and Freeman_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been to identify the condition of the models from Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012 and Weiss_2021 utilizing the condition identification method of Freeman_2019.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durbin_2009 in view of Steingart_2012 in view of Dang_2022 (US 2022/0168079 A1).
Claim 13. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 teach the limitations of claim 2. Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 do not explicitly teach “The color data is acquired for one or more denture library teeth that are represented by the digital reference denture model”.
Dang_2022, however, teaches “The color data is acquired for one or more denture library teeth that are represented by the digital reference denture model (Par. 16: “taking an object colour picture or 3d colour object scan of one or more nearby/adjacent/chosen natural tooth or reference dental object, and uploading the digital picture elements of the object colour picture or of the 3d colour object scan into a computing device” NOTE: Reference dental object refers broadly to dental objects (explained in Par. 12) outside the mouth of the patient. (See Par. 45)).
Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Dang_2022 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called 3D modelling. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Dang_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been to collect color data for specific 3D objects of Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 utilizing the collection method of Dang_2022.
Claim 14. Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Dang_2022 teach the limitations of claim 13. Dang_2022 further teaches “Color data is selected from among multiple versions of the one or more denture library teeth (Par. 45: “When the patient desires to have a pronounced, distinct replacement tooth which clearly stands out, the patent can choose the reference dental object from a catalogue or a collection”) that each have different color shading” (Par. 45: “The… colouring of the reference dental object may separately be chosen”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the color selection of Dang_2022 with the 3D models of Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 to obtain a more aesthetically pleasing model (Dang_2022 Par. 3: “The aesthetic quality of machine fabricated dental objects is currently far behind the quality of those fabricated by skilled dental technicians”).
Claim 15. Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Dang_2022 teach the limitations of claim 14. Dang_2022 further teaches “Color data is selected based on user input identifying shading preferences of the patient for whom the physical denture is being fabricated” (Par. 45: “… the patient can choose a colour… for the reference dental object”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the color selection of Dang_2022 with the 3D models of Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 to obtain a more aesthetically pleasing model.
Claim 16. Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Dang_2022 teach the limitations of claim 14. Dang_2022 further teaches “Color data is selected based on shading information identified from analysis of reference dentition of the patient” (Par. 69: “… this underlying colour must be taken into account, by compensating for unwanted shading”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the color selection of Dang_2022 with the 3D models of Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 to obtain a more aesthetically pleasing model.
Claim 17. Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Dang_2022 teach the limitations of claim 16. Dang_2022 further teaches “The color data is selected based on a closest match (Par. 46: “…the colour and shape of the replacement tooth must match with the adjacent teeth…”) from among the multiple versions of the one or more denture library teeth (Par. 45: “…can choose the reference dental object from a catalogue or a collection…”) with the shading information for the reference dentition of the patient” (Par 16: “taking an object colour picture or 3d colour object scan of one or more nearby/adjacent/chosen natural tooth or reference dental object…). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the color selection of Dang_2022 with the 3D models of Durbin_2009 and Steingart_2012 to obtain a more aesthetically pleasing model.
Claim 18. Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Dang_2022 teach the limitations of claim 16. Dang_2022 further teaches “The reference dentition comprises a reference denture that is being replaced for the patient by the physical denture that is being fabricated” (Par. 16 “taking an object colour picture or 3d colour object scan of one or more nearby/adjacent/chosen natural tooth or reference dental object…”).
Claim 19. Durbin_2009, Steingart_2012, and Dang_2022 teach the limitations of claim 16. Dang_2022 further teaches “The reference dentition comprises one or more teeth of the patient that are being replaced for the patient by the physical denture that is being fabricated” (Par. 16 “taking an object colour picture or 3d colour object scan of one or more nearby/adjacent/chosen natural tooth or reference dental object…”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W LYON whose telephone number is (571)270-0757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/ALEXANDER W LYON/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights