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 § 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 1-10, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Determination as to whether the claims are directed to a statutory category as specified in 35 U.S.C. 101 (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-10, and 13-17 recite(s) a method for correcting tooth positions of antagonistic teeth, comprising the steps of controlling an intraoral scanner for acquiring first and second scan data, generating a three-dimensional teeth model, identifying the occlusal surface contact sections, pairing the occlusal contact sections, arranging the three dimensional models, correcting the pairs, outputting an error message in response to a mismatch in pairs, generating a model for restoration, and controlling a manufacturing device for manufacturing the restoration. These methods fall into the category of a "process" (MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 18 recite(s) a non-transitory computer program for performing a method of controlling an intraoral scanner for acquiring first and second scan data, generating a three-dimensional teeth model, identifying the occlusal surface contact sections, pairing the occlusal contact sections, arranging the three dimensional models, correcting the pairs, outputting an error message in response to a mismatch in pairs, generating a model for restoration, and controlling a manufacturing device for manufacturing the restoration. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium falls into the category of a product (MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 19 recite(s) a system for performing a method of controlling an intraoral scanner for acquiring first and second scan data, generating a three-dimensional teeth model, identifying the occlusal surface contact sections, pairing the occlusal contact sections, arranging the three dimensional models, correcting the pairs, outputting an error message in response to a mismatch in pairs, generating a model for restoration, and controlling a manufacturing device for manufacturing the restoration. The system falls into the category of a product (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A Prong 1 – Determination as to whether the claims recite a Judicial Exception including an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP 2106.04)
Regarding claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations and judgements. The steps of pairing the occlusal contact sections, arranging the three dimensional models, outputting an error message in response to a pair mismatch, correcting the teeth of the models, and generating a model for restoration are steps of a restoration treatment planning process that are performed by an orthodontist as they mentally evaluate the dentition. The steps of controlling an intraoral scanner for acquiring first and second scan data, generating three dimensional models from the scan data, identifying the surface contact sections, and controlling a manufacturing device for manufacturing the restoration are activities incidental to the primary process representing pre-solution and post-solution activity. The step of controlling a manufacturing device is not a manufacturing step, but another process step with the function of manufacturing the restoration. Further, for all of the steps listed, using a computer and scanner as tools to perform these concepts are still recitations of a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(C)).
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, the subsequent directional correcting steps are mental judgements that can be manually performed by a user to match the surface contact sections.
Regarding dependent claim 13, repeating the process steps in response to determining maximum intercuspation has not been achieved is merely another method step that recites mental processes an orthodontist performs in determining the model of the patient’s teeth is not aligned properly.
Regarding dependent claim 14, acquiring data and generating models from the data are extra-solution steps of a mental process that are generic to any computerized dental process.
Regarding dependent claims 15-17, marking the teeth for acquiring scan data is extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of claim 1, which these claims are dependent on.
Regarding claim 18, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises instructions for performing the steps of claim 1. The steps of pairing the occlusal contact sections, arranging the three dimensional models, outputting an error message in response to a pair mismatch, correcting the teeth of the models, and generating a model for restoration are steps of a restoration treatment planning process that are performed by an orthodontist as they mentally evaluate the dentition. The steps of controlling an intraoral scanner for acquiring first and second scan data, generating three dimensional models from the scan data, identifying the surface contact sections, and controlling a manufacturing device for manufacturing the restoration are activities incidental to the primary process representing pre-solution and post-solution activity. The step of controlling a manufacturing device is not a manufacturing step, but another process step with the function of manufacturing the restoration.
Regarding claim 19, the system comprises a computer device, with a processor and memory for performing the steps of claim 1. The steps of pairing the occlusal contact sections, arranging the three dimensional models, outputting an error message in response to a pair mismatch, correcting the teeth of the models, and generating a model for restoration are steps of a restoration treatment planning process that are performed by an orthodontist as they mentally evaluate the dentition. The steps of controlling an intraoral scanner for acquiring first and second scan data, generating three dimensional models from the scan data, identifying the surface contact sections, and controlling a manufacturing device for manufacturing the restoration are activities incidental to the primary process representing pre-solution and post-solution activity. The step of controlling a manufacturing device is not a manufacturing step, but another process step with the function of manufacturing the restoration.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Determination as to whether the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Regarding claims 1-10, and 13-19, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.04(d)). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of pairing the identified first and second surface contact section, arranging the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model and the three- dimensional digital mandibular teeth model in occlusion, and correcting for one or more pairs of antagonistic teeth are directed to a means of manipulating data points from a model of the patient’s dentition, transforming the initial received data of the maxillary and mandibular teeth models. While the teeth of the patient may be marked, the claims are directed to a computer implemented process of planning a correction, with no tangible form of implementing this correction. The use of a scanner to receive scan data and computer implementation of this method is insignificant extra solution activity and does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood and conventional. For the computer program (claim 18) and system claims (19), the computer implementation is what improves the method; the method does not improve the computer on which it operates. Further, the specific process of marking the teeth as disclosed in claims 15-17 is insignificant extra solution activity, as marking teeth for a dental scan is pre-solution activity incidental to the primary process of identifying contact regions on teeth. The paper that is identified for use in marking the patient’s teeth is also conventional. For at least these reasons and as the other dependent claims 2-10, and 13-17 do not recite additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the abstract mental processes identified for claims 1-10, and 13-19 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B – Determination as to whether the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Regarding claims 1-11, and 13-20, as set forth above with respect to Step 2A Prong One, the claimed method steps are all capable of being performed mentally and represent nothing more than concepts related to performing observations, evaluations, and judgements, which fall within the judicial exception. The claimed steps of controlling an intraoral scanner for acquiring first and second scan data, generating a three-dimensional teeth model, identifying the occlusal surface contact sections, pairing the occlusal contact sections, arranging the three dimensional models, correcting the pairs, outputting an error message in response to a mismatch in pairs, generating a model for restoration, and controlling a manufacturing device for manufacturing the restoration require nothing more than a generic computer processor. The disclosure does not describe additional features to suggest these devices are beyond a generic component for the apparatus. Additionally, the design method is not disclosed as improving the manner in which the apparatus operates. Mere recitation of generic conventional processing used in a conventional manner to perform conventional computer functions that are well understood and routine does not amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. The claims do not go beyond inputting data (“receiving a three-dimensional teeth model”) and processing data ( “pairing” and “correcting”) with a standard computer.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Additional elements of claims 1-10, and 13-19 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims set forth do not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine and they do not require that the method particularly transforms a particular article. The claims are directed to planning correction of teeth, not practically performing the correction in a tangible form. When viewed as a combination, the identified additional elements set forth a process of analyzing information of specific content and are not directed to any particularly asserted inventive technology for performing these functions. The disclosure and claims do not require anything beyond a generic computer to obtain and analyze the data according to mathematical algorithms. Therefore, the claimed method and apparatus fall within the judicial exception to patent eligible subject matter of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-8, 15-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al. (US 20120236135 A1), herein referred to as Daniel, in view of Kitching et al. (US 20080305453 A1), herein referred to as Kitching, and further in view of Kang et al. (US 20240008966 A1), herein referred to as Kang.
Regarding claim 1, Daniel discloses a computer-implemented method for correcting relative tooth positions of antagonistic teeth in occlusion for matching a natural occlusion of a patient (refer to Paragraphs [0011]-[0014]; a method for registration of dental surfaces of patient is disclosed), the method (refer to Paragraphs [0011]-[0014]) comprising:
controlling an intraoral scanner for acquiring first scan data of a first set of one or more teeth of a maxilla of the patient (32) with one or more first markings identifying one or more first surface contact sections of the teeth (15), in natural occlusion the one or more first surface contact sections (15) being in contact with one or more second surface contact sections (15) of one or more antagonistic teeth of a mandible of the patient (34) (refer to Paragraphs [0030], [0033]; articulating paper is used to color contact points/areas of the teeth in natural occlusion before scanning the marked upper teeth with an intraoral scanner);
controlling the intraoral scanner for acquiring second scan data of a second set of one or more teeth of the mandible of the patient (34) with one or more second markings identifying one or more of the second surface contact sections of the teeth (15) (refer to Paragraphs [0030], [0033]; articulating paper is used to color contact points/areas of the teeth in natural occlusion before scanning the marked lower teeth with an intraoral scanner);
generating using the first scan data a three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model of the first set of teeth of the maxilla of the patient (32) comprising the first markings (refer to Paragraphs [0033]; the three-dimensional scans are represented digitally in STL format);
generating using the second scan data a three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model of the second set of teeth of the mandible of the patient (34) comprising the second markings (refer to Paragraphs [0033]; the three-dimensional scans are represented digitally in STL format);
identifying the first (15) and second surface contact sections (15) comprised by the teeth of the first and second set of teeth using the first and second markings (refer to Paragraph [0036]; the marked areas on the teeth stained by the articulating paper are identified);
pairing the identified first (15) and second surface contact sections (15), the pairing comprising determining pairs of first and second surface contact sections contacting each other in the natural occlusion (refer to Paragraphs [0041], [0046], Figs. 1A-1B; the two sets of isolated 3D surfaces of the upper and lower jaws are registered or paired using a standard 3D algorithm, where the registration simulates original or natural occlusion in the patient’s mouth; the registration method is equivalent to pairing as the process finds the center of each occlusion area and “registers” this point to the corresponding opposite point, thereby pairing these points prior to bringing the points into alignment with each other);
arranging the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model (32) and the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model (34) in occlusion (refer to Paragraph [0041] and Fig. 3; after registration using the contact areas, a composite 3D image of the upper (32) and lower (34) dental arches is created) by correcting for one or more pairs of antagonistic teeth comprised by the first and second set of teeth taking into account movements of the teeth into an alveolar bone due to compressive force occurring in relative tooth positions of the antagonistic teeth of the individual pairs to match the natural occlusion (in light of Applicant’s specification (see Paragraph [0102], last line, Examiner understands this limitation as being an intended use or functional limitation associated with the correcting process; thus by performing the correcting process, the movement of the teeth towards the alveolar bones is inherently taken into account), the correcting of the relative tooth positions comprising establishing contacts between the first surface contact sections (15) and second surface contact sections (15) of the pairs of first and second surface contact sections comprised by the antagonistic teeth of the individual pairs of antagonistic teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0041], [0046], Figs. 1A-1B; the registration process “corrects” the pairs by using an algorithm to bring the separated contact surfaces into close proximity, establishing contacts to represent the patient’s natural occlusion); and
wherein the method further comprises:
generating, using the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model (32) and the three- dimensional digital mandibular teeth model (34) with the teeth arranged in natural occlusion, a three- dimensional digital dental restoration model defining a form of a dental restoration element to be used for restoring one or more of the teeth of one or more of the following: the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model (32), the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model (34) (refer to Paragraph [0052]; the method of registering the dental surfaces in natural occlusion is used form the external shape of a crown or bridge or other prosthesis, where the original tooth for forming the crown is located on the maxillary or mandibular model).
Daniel does not explicitly disclose arranging the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model and the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model in a preliminary occlusion, establishing the natural occlusion starting from the preliminary occlusion, in response to detecting that a number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections exceeds a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth in occlusion by a predefined first amount, outputting an error message and repeating one or more of the following: the identifying, the pairing;[[,]], and controlling a manufacturing device manufacturing the dental restoration element in form of a physical copy of the three-dimensional digital dental restoration model; however, Daniel does disclose that a registration algorithm for the occlusion marked surfaces is used to correct the pairs of antagonistic teeth and arrange the upper and lower models in occlusion (refer to paragraphs [0041], [0046]).
Daniel can be modified by Kitching, who discloses a surface matching method (analogous to a registration algorithm) in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0026]), and Kang, who discloses a method of occlusion alignment in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0042]), to meet these limitations as follows:
Arrange the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model (32) and the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model (34) of Daniel (refer to Paragraph [0041] and Fig. 3) in a preliminary occlusion model, in the same fashion as the “rough match” step of the method of Kitching, in which the two models are roughly aligned according to an initial matching algorithm (refer to Paragraph [0050], Fig. 6). This initial match confirms the correct models are being used, providing a good starting point for executing a surface matching algorithm (refer to Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arranging step of Daniel with arranging the maxillary and mandibular teeth models in a preliminary occlusion, as Kitching teaches using an initial matching algorithm in order to confirm the correct models are being used, providing a good starting point for executing a surface matching algorithm (refer to Paragraph [0053]).
Establish the natural occlusion using the registration algorithm as taught by Daniel (refer to Paragraphs [0041], [0046]), starting from the preliminary occlusion in the same fashion as the “detailed matching” step using the surface matching algorithm as taught by Kitching, where an iterative process matches the surfaces of two models (refer to Paragraph [0054], Fig. 6). This step allows for positioning the models according to the closest corresponding sampling points (refer to Paragraph [0054]), the same process used for matching the contact areas of Daniel (refer to Paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the correcting step of Daniel with establishing the natural occlusion starting from the preliminary occlusion, as Kitching teaches using a detailed matching step after the initial “rough” matching step to position the models according to the closest corresponding sampling points (refer to Paragraph [0054]), the same process as Daniel (refer to Paragraph [0041]).
Detecting a number of errors in the same fashion as Kitching, where resulting errors from the surface matching algorithm are compared to a predetermined tolerance. When the errors are greater than a predetermined tolerance, error statistics are output to a display for rematching (610), where the corresponding sample points are again identified and paired between the models (612) (refer to Paragraphs [0052], [0054]-[0055], Fig. 6). This method of accounting for errors can be used for meaningful comparison, accounting for typical variance between different scans or impressions (refer to Paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Daniel with detecting a number of errors, outputting the error based on the number of errors exceeding a second predefined amount, and repeating the identifying and matching, as Kitching teaches an error detection method by a surface matching algorithm, where this method of accounting for errors can be used for meaningful comparison, accounting for typical variance between different scans or impressions (refer to Paragraph [0055]).
Kitching discloses that the calculated errors are the result of surface differences between the models being aligned or matched (refer to Paragraph [0055])).
Kang further discloses performing corrective action in response to detecting that a number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections exceeds a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth (refer to Paragraph [0076], Fig. 10; in response to zero interpenetrations between the two teeth, but multiple paired points, a compensation alignment is performed). The pairs of contact sections exceed the number of interpenetrations due to the “error” of a patient having weak masticatory force when collecting the scan data (refer to Paragraphs [0059], [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of error detection as taught by Daniel and Kitching with detecting that a number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections exceeds a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth as Kang teaches this detection as indicative of an “error” in acquiring data with a patient having weak masticatory force (refer to Paragraphs [0059], [0076]).
Controlling a manufacturing device manufacturing the dental restoration element in form of a physical copy of the three-dimensional digital dental restoration model in the same fashion as Kitching, where manufacturing of the final appliance is based on the determined plan from the surface matching algorithm in order to treat the patient (refer to Paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Daniel with controlling a manufacturing device manufacturing the dental restoration element in form of a physical copy of the three-dimensional digital dental restoration model, as Kitching teaches manufacturing as the final step prior to treating the patient (refer to Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claims 2-8, Daniel, Kitching and Kang disclose the method of claim 1; Daniel and Kitching are silent to correcting of the tooth positions by moving antagonistic teeth in opposite directions, apart from each other and/or towards each other, by moving only one set of teeth, where moving teeth of the pairs of antagonistic teeth is perpendicular to the tooth axes.
In performing compensation alignment (S140, Fig. 8), Kang further discloses the following steps:
the antagonistic teeth of one or more first pairs of the pairs of antagonistic teeth interpenetrating each other, the correcting of the tooth positions comprising moving the antagonistic teeth of the individual first pairs apart from each other, in opposite directions, along the tooth axes of the respective teeth, until one or more contacts between the one or more pairs of first and second surface contact sections comprised by the respective antagonistic teeth are established (refer to Paragraphs [0063], [0083]-[0084], Figs. 12-13; a compensation alignment is performed on the overlapped portions of the two teeth by moving one or both of the teeth apart from each other by iteratively adjusting the threshold according to the overlapped portions contacting each other; in moving the teeth apart from each other (vertically up and down), the teeth are moved perpendicular to the horizontal axes of the teeth; this modification meets claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8);
the antagonistic teeth of one or more second pairs of the pairs of antagonistic teeth comprising pairs of first and second surface contact sections arranged spaced apart from each other, the correcting of the tooth positions comprising moving the antagonistic teeth of the individual second pairs towards each other along the tooth axes of the respective teeth, until one or more contacts between the one or more pairs of first and second surface contact sections comprised by the respective antagonistic teeth are established (refer to Paragraphs [0076], [0078], Figs, 9-10; a compensation alignment is performed on the portions of the two teeth that are spaced apart by moving one or both of the teeth closer to each other by iteratively adjusting the threshold according to the spaced apart portions contacting each other; in moving the teeth closer together (vertically up and down), the teeth are moved perpendicular to the horizontal axes of the teeth; this modification meets claims 4, 5, 7, 8).
These methods acquire a three-dimensional model having an appropriate occlusion position in consideration of the patient’s masticatory force (refer to Paragraph [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the occlusion alignment method of Daniel and Kitching with the compensation alignment method as taught by Kang in order to acquire a three-dimensional model having an appropriate occlusion position in consideration of the patient’s masticatory force (refer to Paragraph [0085]).
11. (Canceled)
12. (Canceled)
Regarding claims 15-16, Daniel, Kitching and Kang disclose the method of claim 1; Daniel discloses marking the first surface contact sections of the first set of teeth with the first markings, using a visible marking color detectable by the intraoral scanner (refer to Paragraph [0036], Figs. 1A-1B; the marked contact points are detected via the reflection level from the scanner sensor), for the acquiring of the first scan data and marking the second surface contact sections of the second set of teeth with the second markings for the acquiring of the first scan data using articulating paper, on which the patient bites (refer to Paragraphs [0027], [0030]; markings are obtained on the teeth of both the upper and lower jaws by the patient biting on articulation paper to directly mark the contact areas of the teeth in natural occlusion).
Regarding claim 18, Daniel discloses a computer program product for correcting relative tooth positions of antagonistic teeth in occlusion for matching a natural occlusion, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions being executable by a processor of a computer device to cause the computer device to (refer to Paragraphs [0011]-[0014], [0053] ; a method for registration of dental surfaces of patient is disclosed implemented as a computer program product stored in a non-transitory computer medium for communication with a computer to execute the instructions):
controlling an intraoral scanner for acquiring first scan data of a first set of one or more teeth of a maxilla of the patient (32) with one or more first markings identifying one or more first surface contact sections of the teeth (15), in natural occlusion the one or more first surface contact sections (15) being in contact with one or more second surface contact sections (15) of one or more antagonistic teeth of a mandible of the patient (34) (refer to Paragraphs [0030], [0033]; articulating paper is used to color contact points/areas of the teeth in natural occlusion before scanning the marked upper teeth with an intraoral scanner);
controlling the intraoral scanner for acquiring second scan data of a second set of one or more teeth of the mandible of the patient (34) with one or more second markings identifying one or more of the second surface contact sections of the teeth (15) (refer to Paragraphs [0030], [0033]; articulating paper is used to color contact points/areas of the teeth in natural occlusion before scanning the marked lower teeth with an intraoral scanner);
generating using the first scan data a three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model of the first set of teeth of the maxilla of the patient (32) comprising the first markings (refer to Paragraphs [0033]; the three-dimensional scans are represented digitally in STL format);
generating using the second scan data a three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model of the second set of teeth of the mandible of the patient (34) comprising the second markings (refer to Paragraphs [0033]; the three-dimensional scans are represented digitally in STL format);
identifying the first (15) and second surface contact sections (15) comprised by the teeth of the first and second set of teeth using the first and second markings (refer to Paragraph [0036]; the marked areas on the teeth stained by the articulating paper are identified);
pairing the identified first (15) and second surface contact sections (15), the pairing comprising determining pairs of first and second surface contact sections contacting each other in the natural occlusion (refer to Paragraphs [0041], [0046], Figs. 1A-1B; the two sets of isolated 3D surfaces of the upper and lower jaws are registered or paired using a standard 3D algorithm, where the registration simulates original or natural occlusion in the patient’s mouth; the registration method is equivalent to pairing as the process finds the center of each occlusion area and “registers” this point to the corresponding opposite point, thereby pairing these points prior to bringing the points into alignment with each other);
arranging the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model (32) and the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model (34) in occlusion (refer to Paragraph [0041] and Fig. 3; after registration using the contact areas, a composite 3D image of the upper (32) and lower (34) dental arches is created) by correcting for one or more pairs of antagonistic teeth comprised by the first and second set of teeth taking into account movements of the teeth into an alveolar bone due to compressive force occurring in relative tooth positions of the antagonistic teeth of the individual pairs to match the natural occlusion (in light of Applicant’s specification (see Paragraph [0102], last line, Examiner understands this limitation as being an intended use or functional limitation associated with the correcting process; thus by performing the correcting process, the movement of the teeth towards the alveolar bones is inherently taken into account), the correcting of the relative tooth positions comprising establishing contacts between the first surface contact sections (15) and second surface contact sections (15) of the pairs of first and second surface contact sections comprised by the antagonistic teeth of the individual pairs of antagonistic teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0041], [0046], Figs. 1A-1B; the registration process “corrects” the pairs by using an algorithm to bring the separated contact surfaces into close proximity, establishing contacts to represent the patient’s natural occlusion); and
wherein the computer program product further comprises:
generating, using the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model (32) and the three- dimensional digital mandibular teeth model (34) with the teeth arranged in natural occlusion, a three- dimensional digital dental restoration model defining a form of a dental restoration element to be used for restoring one or more of the teeth of one or more of the following: the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model (32), the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model (34) (refer to Paragraph [0052]; the method of registering the dental surfaces in natural occlusion is used form the external shape of a crown or bridge or other prosthesis, where the original tooth for forming the crown is located on the maxillary or mandibular model).
Daniel does not explicitly disclose arranging the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model and the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model in a preliminary occlusion, establishing the natural occlusion starting from the preliminary occlusion, in response to detecting that a number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections exceeds a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth in occlusion by a predefined first amount, outputting an error message and repeating one or more of the following: the identifying, the pairing;[[,]], and controlling a manufacturing device manufacturing the dental restoration element in form of a physical copy of the three-dimensional digital dental restoration model; however, Daniel does disclose that a registration algorithm for the occlusion marked surfaces is used to correct the pairs of antagonistic teeth and arrange the upper and lower models in occlusion (refer to paragraphs [0041], [0046]).
Daniel can be modified by Kitching, who discloses a surface matching method (analogous to a registration algorithm) in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0026]), and Kang, who discloses a method of occlusion alignment in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0042]), to meet these limitations as follows:
Arrange the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model (32) and the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model (34) of Daniel (refer to Paragraph [0041] and Fig. 3) in a preliminary occlusion model, in the same fashion as the “rough match” step of the method of Kitching, in which the two models are roughly aligned according to an initial matching algorithm (refer to Paragraph [0050], Fig. 6). This initial match confirms the correct models are being used, providing a good starting point for executing a surface matching algorithm (refer to Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arranging step of Daniel with arranging the maxillary and mandibular teeth models in a preliminary occlusion, as Kitching teaches using an initial matching algorithm in order to confirm the correct models are being used, providing a good starting point for executing a surface matching algorithm (refer to Paragraph [0053]).
Establish the natural occlusion using the registration algorithm as taught by Daniel (refer to Paragraphs [0041], [0046]), starting from the preliminary occlusion in the same fashion as the “detailed matching” step using the surface matching algorithm as taught by Kitching, where an iterative process matches the surfaces of two models (refer to Paragraph [0054], Fig. 6). This step allows for positioning the models according to the closest corresponding sampling points (refer to Paragraph [0054]), the same process used for matching the contact areas of Daniel (refer to Paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the correcting step of Daniel with establishing the natural occlusion starting from the preliminary occlusion, as Kitching teaches using a detailed matching step after the initial “rough” matching step to position the models according to the closest corresponding sampling points (refer to Paragraph [0054]), the same process as Daniel (refer to Paragraph [0041]).
Detecting a number of errors in the same fashion as Kitching, where resulting errors from the surface matching algorithm are compared to a predetermined tolerance. When the errors are greater than a predetermined tolerance, error statistics are output to a display for rematching (610), where the corresponding sample points are again identified and paired between the models (612) (refer to Paragraphs [0052], [0054]-[0055], Fig. 6). This method of accounting for errors can be used for meaningful comparison, accounting for typical variance between different scans or impressions (refer to Paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Daniel with detecting a number of errors, outputting the error based on the number of errors exceeding a second predefined amount, and repeating the identifying and matching, as Kitching teaches an error detection method by a surface matching algorithm, where this method of accounting for errors can be used for meaningful comparison, accounting for typical variance between different scans or impressions (refer to Paragraph [0055]).
Kitching discloses that the calculated errors are the result of surface differences between the models being aligned or matched (refer to Paragraph [0055])).
Kang further discloses performing corrective action in response to detecting that a number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections exceeds a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth (refer to Paragraph [0076], Fig. 10; in response to zero interpenetrations between the two teeth, but multiple paired points, a compensation alignment is performed). The pairs of contact sections exceed the number of interpenetrations due to the “error” of a patient having weak masticatory force when collecting the scan data (refer to Paragraphs [0059], [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of error detection as taught by Daniel and Kitching with detecting that a number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections exceeds a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth as Kang teaches this detection as indicative of an “error” in acquiring data with a patient having weak masticatory force (refer to Paragraphs [0059], [0076]).
Controlling a manufacturing device manufacturing the dental restoration element in form of a physical copy of the three-dimensional digital dental restoration model in the same fashion as Kitching, where manufacturing of the final appliance is based on the determined plan from the surface matching algorithm in order to treat the patient (refer to Paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Daniel with controlling a manufacturing device manufacturing the dental restoration element in form of a physical copy of the three-dimensional digital dental restoration model, as Kitching teaches manufacturing as the final step prior to treating the patient (refer to Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, Daniel discloses a system for correcting relative tooth positions of antagonistic teeth in occlusion for matching a natural occlusion comprising a computer device, the computer device comprising a processor and a memory storing program instructions executable by the processor, execution of the program instructions by the processor causing the computer device to (refer to Paragraphs [0011]-[0014], [0053] ; a method for registration of dental surfaces of patient is disclosed implemented as a computer program product stored in a non-transitory computer medium for communication with a computer to execute the instructions):
controlling an intraoral scanner for acquiring first scan data of a first set of one or more teeth of a maxilla of the patient (32) with one or more first markings identifying one or more first surface contact sections of the teeth (15), in natural occlusion the one or more first surface contact sections (15) being in contact with one or more second surface contact sections (15) of one or more antagonistic teeth of a mandible of the patient (34) (refer to Paragraphs [0030], [0033]; articulating paper is used to color contact points/areas of the teeth in natural occlusion before scanning the marked upper teeth with an intraoral scanner);
controlling the intraoral scanner for acquiring second scan data of a second set of one or more teeth of the mandible of the patient (34) with one or more second markings identifying one or more of the second surface contact sections of the teeth (15) (refer to Paragraphs [0030], [0033]; articulating paper is used to color contact points/areas of the teeth in natural occlusion before scanning the marked lower teeth with an intraoral scanner);
generating using the first scan data a three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model of the first set of teeth of the maxilla of the patient (32) comprising the first markings (refer to Paragraphs [0033]; the three-dimensional scans are represented digitally in STL format);
generating using the second scan data a three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model of the second set of teeth of the mandible of the patient (34) comprising the second markings (refer to Paragraphs [0033]; the three-dimensional scans are represented digitally in STL format);
identifying the first (15) and second surface contact sections (15) comprised by the teeth of the first and second set of teeth using the first and second markings (refer to Paragraph [0036]; the marked areas on the teeth stained by the articulating paper are identified);
pairing the identified first (15) and second surface contact sections (15), the pairing comprising determining pairs of first and second surface contact sections contacting each other in the natural occlusion (refer to Paragraphs [0041], [0046], Figs. 1A-1B; the two sets of isolated 3D surfaces of the upper and lower jaws are registered or paired using a standard 3D algorithm, where the registration simulates original or natural occlusion in the patient’s mouth; the registration method is equivalent to pairing as the process finds the center of each occlusion area and “registers” this point to the corresponding opposite point, thereby pairing these points prior to bringing the points into alignment with each other);
arranging the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model (32) and the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model (34) in occlusion (refer to Paragraph [0041] and Fig. 3; after registration using the contact areas, a composite 3D image of the upper (32) and lower (34) dental arches is created) by correcting for one or more pairs of antagonistic teeth comprised by the first and second set of teeth taking into account movements of the teeth into an alveolar bone due to compressive force occurring in relative tooth positions of the antagonistic teeth of the individual pairs to match the natural occlusion (in light of Applicant’s specification (see Paragraph [0102], last line, Examiner understands this limitation as being an intended use or functional limitation associated with the correcting process; thus by performing the correcting process, the movement of the teeth towards the alveolar bones is inherently taken into account), the correcting of the relative tooth positions comprising establishing contacts between the first surface contact sections (15) and second surface contact sections (15) of the pairs of first and second surface contact sections comprised by the antagonistic teeth of the individual pairs of antagonistic teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0041], [0046], Figs. 1A-1B; the registration process “corrects” the pairs by using an algorithm to bring the separated contact surfaces into close proximity, establishing contacts to represent the patient’s natural occlusion); and
wherein the computer program product further comprises:
generating, using the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model (32) and the three- dimensional digital mandibular teeth model (34) with the teeth arranged in natural occlusion, a three- dimensional digital dental restoration model defining a form of a dental restoration element to be used for restoring one or more of the teeth of one or more of the following: the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model (32), the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model (34) (refer to Paragraph [0052]; the method of registering the dental surfaces in natural occlusion is used form the external shape of a crown or bridge or other prosthesis, where the original tooth for forming the crown is located on the maxillary or mandibular model).
Daniel does not explicitly disclose arranging the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model and the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model in a preliminary occlusion, establishing the natural occlusion starting from the preliminary occlusion, in response to detecting that a number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections exceeds a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth in occlusion by a predefined first amount, outputting an error message and repeating one or more of the following: the identifying, the pairing;[[,]], and controlling a manufacturing device manufacturing the dental restoration element in form of a physical copy of the three-dimensional digital dental restoration model; however, Daniel does disclose that a registration algorithm for the occlusion marked surfaces is used to correct the pairs of antagonistic teeth and arrange the upper and lower models in occlusion (refer to paragraphs [0041], [0046]).
Daniel can be modified by Kitching, who discloses a surface matching method (analogous to a registration algorithm) in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0026]), and Kang, who discloses a method of occlusion alignment in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0042]), to meet these limitations as follows:
Arrange the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model (32) and the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model (34) of Daniel (refer to Paragraph [0041] and Fig. 3) in a preliminary occlusion model, in the same fashion as the “rough match” step of the method of Kitching, in which the two models are roughly aligned according to an initial matching algorithm (refer to Paragraph [0050], Fig. 6). This initial match confirms the correct models are being used, providing a good starting point for executing a surface matching algorithm (refer to Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arranging step of Daniel with arranging the maxillary and mandibular teeth models in a preliminary occlusion, as Kitching teaches using an initial matching algorithm in order to confirm the correct models are being used, providing a good starting point for executing a surface matching algorithm (refer to Paragraph [0053]).
Establish the natural occlusion using the registration algorithm as taught by Daniel (refer to Paragraphs [0041], [0046]), starting from the preliminary occlusion in the same fashion as the “detailed matching” step using the surface matching algorithm as taught by Kitching, where an iterative process matches the surfaces of two models (refer to Paragraph [0054], Fig. 6). This step allows for positioning the models according to the closest corresponding sampling points (refer to Paragraph [0054]), the same process used for matching the contact areas of Daniel (refer to Paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the correcting step of Daniel with establishing the natural occlusion starting from the preliminary occlusion, as Kitching teaches using a detailed matching step after the initial “rough” matching step to position the models according to the closest corresponding sampling points (refer to Paragraph [0054]), the same process as Daniel (refer to Paragraph [0041]).
Detecting a number of errors in the same fashion as Kitching, where resulting errors from the surface matching algorithm are compared to a predetermined tolerance. When the errors are greater than a predetermined tolerance, error statistics are output to a display for rematching (610), where the corresponding sample points are again identified and paired between the models (612) (refer to Paragraphs [0052], [0054]-[0055], Fig. 6). This method of accounting for errors can be used for meaningful comparison, accounting for typical variance between different scans or impressions (refer to Paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Daniel with detecting a number of errors, outputting the error based on the number of errors exceeding a second predefined amount, and repeating the identifying and matching, as Kitching teaches an error detection method by a surface matching algorithm, where this method of accounting for errors can be used for meaningful comparison, accounting for typical variance between different scans or impressions (refer to Paragraph [0055]).
Kitching discloses that the calculated errors are the result of surface differences between the models being aligned or matched (refer to Paragraph [0055])).
Kang further discloses performing corrective action in response to detecting that a number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections exceeds a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth (refer to Paragraph [0076], Fig. 10; in response to zero interpenetrations between the two teeth, but multiple paired points, a compensation alignment is performed). The pairs of contact sections exceed the number of interpenetrations due to the “error” of a patient having weak masticatory force when collecting the scan data (refer to Paragraphs [0059], [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of error detection as taught by Daniel and Kitching with detecting that a number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections exceeds a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth as Kang teaches this detection as indicative of an “error” in acquiring data with a patient having weak masticatory force (refer to Paragraphs [0059], [0076]).
Controlling a manufacturing device manufacturing the dental restoration element in form of a physical copy of the three-dimensional digital dental restoration model in the same fashion as Kitching, where manufacturing of the final appliance is based on the determined plan from the surface matching algorithm in order to treat the patient (refer to Paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Daniel with controlling a manufacturing device manufacturing the dental restoration element in form of a physical copy of the three-dimensional digital dental restoration model, as Kitching teaches manufacturing as the final step prior to treating the patient (refer to Paragraph [0042]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al. (US 20120236135 A1), herein referred to as Daniel, in view of Kitching et al. (US 20080305453 A1), herein referred to as Kitching, and further in view of Kang et al. (US 20240008966 A1), herein referred to as Kang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Somasundaram et al. (US 20180333231 A1), herein referred to as Somasundaram.
Regarding claims 9-10, Daniel, Kitching and Kang disclose the method of claim 1; all are silent to moving teeth of the pairs of antagonistic teeth around to the tooth axes, where the axis of rotation comprises an axis extending in a vestibula or mesial direction.
Somasundaram discloses a method of aligning arch pairs using 3D body transformations in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0015]), where the method comprising the steps of:
the correcting of the tooth positions further comprising rotating teeth of the pairs of antagonistic teeth around one or more axes of rotation of the respective teeth, the one or more axes of rotation comprising one or more of the following axes per tooth extending perpendicular to each other: the tooth axis of the respective tooth, an axis extending in vestibula direction of the respective tooth (Examiner understands this as a horizontal direction towards the back of the mouth), an axis extending in mesial direction of the respective tooth (Examiner understands this as a horizontal direction towards the front of the mouth) (refer to Paragraphs [0019], [0038], [0046]; the 3D transformation from the iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm includes a rigid body transform with a rotation matrix; the rotation matrix rotates the maxilla and/or mandible about the X (vestibula-mesial direction), Y and Z axes relative to the other). This method produces a bite aligned mandible and maxilla orientated in a standard direction (refer to Paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the occlusion alignment method of Daniel, Kitching and Kang with the rigid body transformation as taught by Somasundaram in order to produce a bite aligned mandible and maxilla orientated in a standard direction (refer to Paragraph [0015]).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al. (US 20120236135 A1), herein referred to as Daniel, in view of Kitching et al. (US 20080305453 A1), herein referred to as Kitching, and further in view of Kang et al. (US 20240008966 A1), herein referred to as Kang, as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Glinec et al. (US 20160008116 A1), herein referred to as Glinec.
Regarding claim 13, Daniel, Kitching and Kang disclose the method of claim 1; Daniel does not explicitly disclose in response to detecting that a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth in occlusion exceeds the number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections determined by a predefined second amount, outputting an error message and repeating the acquiring of the first and second scan data as well as the generating of the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model and the three- dimensional digital mandibular teeth model.
Daniel can be modified by Kitching, who discloses a surface matching method (analogous to a registration algorithm) in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0026]), and Kang, who discloses a method of occlusion alignment in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0042]), to meet these limitations as follows:
Detecting a number of errors in the same fashion as Kitching, where resulting errors from the initial matching algorithm are compared to a predetermined tolerance (608, 610). When the errors are greater than a second predetermined tolerance of zero, error statistics are output to a display (refer to Paragraph [0050]). This method of accounting for errors can be used to determine if the models match each other (refer to Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Daniel with detecting a number of errors, and outputting the error based on a predefined second amount, as Kitching teaches an error detection method by to determine if the models match each other (refer to Paragraph [0051]).
Kang further discloses performing corrective action in response to detecting that a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth in occlusion exceeds the number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections (refer to Paragraph [0082], annotated Fig. 12 below; in response to contact points exceeding a distance threshold, there is an increase in the overlap area between the two teeth, resulting in more interpenetration points than paired jaw points). The pairs of interpenetrations exceed the contact areas due to the “error” of a patient having strong masticatory force when collecting the scan data (refer to Paragraphs [0059], [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of error detection as taught by Daniel and Kitching with detecting that a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth in occlusion exceeds the number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections as Kang teaches this detection as indicative of an “error” in acquiring data with a patient having strong masticatory force (refer to Paragraphs [0059], [0085]).
Daniel, Kitching and Kang do not disclose repeating the acquiring of the first and second scan data as well as the generating of the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model and the three- dimensional digital mandibular teeth model.
Glinec discloses a method of bite registration in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0001]). In this method, the attempted alignment of the upper and lower jaw is performed (S130), wherein in response to detecting that a metric exceeds a predetermined threshold (S134), the proposed alignment or stitching is rejected (S135), an error message (109) is output (refer to Paragraph [0061], Fig. 8; the user receives a notification (109) of failing to align), and the acquiring of the bite scan data as well as the generating of the three-dimensional models based on the bite scan data is repeated (refer to Paragraphs [0053], [0054], [0059], Fig. 2; if alignment is not successful, the process returns back to step S120 to require additional images of the bite surface (191), which includes the upper and lower jaw; image processing is applied to the bite views to then generate a 3D surface). The bite scan data of Glinec is analogous to the scan data of the upper and lower jaws of Daniel. This method is advantageous for allowing a user to evaluate optimized bite registrations of the patient’s teeth (refer to Paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Daniel, Kitching and Kang to include repeating the acquiring of the first and second scan data as well as the generating of the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model and the three- dimensional digital mandibular teeth model in response to detecting that a number of interpenetrations between the teeth of the first and second sets of teeth in occlusion exceeds the number of pairs of first and second surface contact sections, as Glinec teaches reacquiring of scan data and generating 3D models in response to detecting an amount of errors that exceeds a predetermined threshold to evaluate optimized bite registrations of the patient’s teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0053], [0054], [0059], [0061], [0063]).
Regarding claim 14, Daniel, Kitching and Kang disclose the method of claim 1; all are silent to acquiring occlusion scan data of the first set of teeth being in occlusion with the second set of teeth using the intraoral scanner, the occlusion scan data being used for the arranging of the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model and the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model in occlusion.
Glinec discloses a method of bite registration in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0001]), wherein the method discloses acquiring occlusion scan data of the first set of teeth being in occlusion with the second set of teeth using the intraoral scanner (refer to Paragraph [0053], Fig. 1; the bite views are captured by an intraoral scanner (13) while the jaws are in a clenched state), the occlusion scan data being used for the arranging of the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model and the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model in occlusion (refer to Paragraph [0054]; image processing is used to generate a 3D bite surface (191) of the upper and lower jaws wherein this bite surface can be used in the process of alignment to improve the accuracy of bite registration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method of correcting relative tooth positions for matching a natural occlusion as taught by Daniel, Kitching, and Kang with the method of acquiring occlusion scan data for the arranging of the three-dimensional digital maxillary teeth model and the three-dimensional digital mandibular teeth model in occlusion as taught by Glinec, in order to improve the accuracy of bite registration (refer to Paragraph [0054]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al. (US 20120236135 A1), herein referred to as Daniel, in view of Kitching et al. (US 20080305453 A1), herein referred to as Kitching, and Kang et al. (US 20240008966 A1), herein referred to as Kang, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Van Der Poel et al. (US 20190183345 A1), herein referred to as Van Der Poel.
Regarding claim 17, Daniel, Kitching and Kang disclose the method of claim 15, with Daniel further disclosing the first and second surface contact sections being marked using an invisible marking color (refer to Paragraph [0030]; articulating paper is used to mark the upper and lower dentition; per the definition of articulating paper from Oxford’s A Diction of Dentistry, articulating paper can be coated in fluorescent or colored dye, with fluorescent dye being invisible) detectable by the intraoral scanner (refer to Paragraphs [0035]-[0036]; the 3D scanners and sensors detect the amount of light returned from the dental surface, allowing marked areas to be identified; fluorescent surfaces return a different amount of light than non-fluorescent surfaces), but does not disclose representing the recorded occlusal contact surfaces with a color on the three-dimensional arch models.
Van Der Poel discloses a 3D scanner system in the same field of endeavor, for mapping fluorescence on a digital 3D representation of the teeth. The method as disclosed comprises creating a representation of the fluorescence emitted from the fluorescent material of the teeth based on recorded images (refer to Paragraph [0015]), mapping the representation on the corresponding portion of the digital 3D teeth models (refer to Paragraph [0016]) and visually displaying the fluorescent region with coloring (refer to Paragraphs [0017], [0019]). This method enables facile viewing of the occlusal regions of the patient’s dentition without color staining the teeth.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of marking occlusal regions as taught by Daniel, Kitching and Kang with the fluorescent scanning and display method as taught by Van Der Poel. to provide a method of easily observing the occlusal contact regions without staining the patient’s teeth.
Response to Arguments
The outstanding claim 7 objection is withdrawn in view of the newly submitted claim amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the claims overcome the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the claims are directed to computer implemented technology using a method that can be accomplished by hand. The addition of a computer to perform a method of occlusion alignment that has long been accomplished without a computer does not amount to significantly more. Dentists have performed a method of occlusion alignment using articulation paper and manual articulators. The amended step “controlling a manufacturing device” is not a true manufacturing step, but another processing step with a functional limitation. Examiner recommends amending this language to specifically state that a restoration is being manufactured by machining, 3D printing, casting as stated in Paragraphs [0052]-[0053] of the specification.
In response to the argument that Daniel does not account for tooth movement into the alveolar bone, Applicant’s specification states this as a functional limitation (see Paragraph [0102]), such that this limitation is met by the process step of correcting relative tooth positions. As stated in the above rejection, Daniel discloses the process of correcting relative tooth positions and this process is therefore capable of this intended use limitation.
In response to the argument about when the interpenetrations are defined, Examiner notes that the claim language does not define when in the process interpenetrations are first detected.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 18 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new rejection relies on Daniel as a primary reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jordan et al. (US 9084653 B2) discloses a wobbling technique for dental articulation modeling (refer to col. 12, lines 12-20).
Fisker et al. (US 20190117349 A1) discloses a method of aligning jaws using contact points (Fig. 1).
Keating et al. (US 20080038684 A1) discloses a method of aligning jaws using Euler rotations and translations (refer to Paragraph [0032], Fig. 4).
Nilson discloses a method of aligning virtual jaw models using surface matching (refer to Paragraph [0063]).
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 Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-7:00 EST.
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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772