DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 18, 2025 has been entered.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/175,067, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The previous application lacks support for the current application, claims 1-27, because it lacks mention of an implant planning interface that creates a plan for a placement and shape of a crown or implant based on the superimposition of images. Specifically, the specification and drawings fail to include any recitation or illustration in support of the system or method independent claim that includes receiving “a superimpositions of a volumetric image and a surface scan image… the practitioner can alter at least one of the received image…and/or the generated plan with respect to the tooth crown or implant shape” as defined in claim 1; receiving and processing superimposition of volumetric and a surface scan images…segmenting the processed image into distinct…crown or implants shape as defined in claim 16; and receiving “superimposition of a volumetric and a surface scan images for processing … suggesting at least one of the crown or implant based on the crown or implant shape” as defined in claim 27.
Response to Amendment
4. The amendment filed December 18, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-27 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome the rejections for Figures 25 and 26. The objection to Figure 27 remains. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed August 18, 2025 is now overcome.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
6. Applicant argues that because U.S. Application No. 17/868,098 has support for the limitations disclosed in the current Application No. 18/210,593 that the earliest effective filing date of 16/175,067 should still be preserved.
Examiner replies that MPEP 1504.20 asserts that “Only when the claim of the continuation-in-part application is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the earlier non-provisional application will the claim be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the earlier nonprovisional application.” Application No. 17/868,098, filed July 19, 2022, carries support for the claim 1, 16, and 17 limitations in paragraphs 7 and 66. Although an effective filing date benefit may be claimed to the filing date of Application No. 17/868,098, it may not be claimed to the filing date of Application No. 16/175,067. Application No. 16/175,067 does not have support for the limitations in claim 1 as explained previously in the Office Action mailed August 18, 2025 and explained above. Thus, the current application 18/210,593 is not entitled to the earliest filing date of October 30, 2018.
7. Applicant argues that the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) should be withdrawn for claim 16 because support is found in the Specification, Paragraphs 144-148.
Examiner replies that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not an objection or rejection but just a claim interpretation. Examiner acknowledges that support for the structure can be found in Paragraphs 144-148. The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation remains since the claim language remains the same.
8. Applicant argues that "there is no rational motivation or teaching of the segmentation on the superimposed image, and eventually implant planning customization with respect to the crown or implant shape, position, or site." The Applicant asserts that the claims of the subject inventions are directed to receiving a precomputed superimposition that “renders a unified visual depicting structures captured by the three-dimensional voxel array alongside surface details represented by the polygonal mesh,” segmenting that unified visual into distinct anatomical structures for individual selection, predicting a tooth crown or implant shape and position in place of the selected structure, generating a plan based on the predicted crown or implant shape and positioning, and providing an implant planning interface enabling practitioner alteration of the received image, segmented image, and/or the generated plan with respect to the crown or implant shape, position, or site.
Examiner replies that there is reason to combine Glor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0162813 A1), which teaches the implant planning interface in Paragraphs 163 and 171, with Aamodt (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306010 A1), which teaches receiving the superimposition of the volumetric image and surface scan image in Paragraph 5. The reason can be found within Aamodt’s specification in Paragraph 44 which teaches the motivation for superimposing the images is to create a high precision model of the patient’s teeth. Thus, there is a motivation or suggestion to combine references to arrive at the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the elements the Applicant asserts the claims of the subject invention are directed to. First, Aamodt teaches receiving the superimposition that renders a unified visual taught in Paragraph 5. Aamodt further teaches in Paragraphs 40 and 43 segmenting the unified visual into distinct anatomical structures for individual selection. For example, Aamodt Paragraph 40 teaches “different teeth in the model may be segmented in order to enable independent selection…”. Glor in Paragraphs 16 and 18 also teaches selecting an anatomical structure and predicting an implant for that area. Lastly, Glor in Paragraph 163 teaches providing an implant planning interface enabling alteration of the image. Thus, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the claims the subject invention are directed to.
9. Applicant argues that Aamodt does not disclose "receiving, as input, a precomputed superimposition that itself renders a unified visual depicting structures captured by the three-dimensional voxel array alongside surface details represented by the polygonal mesh". Specifically, the Applicant highlights that Aamodt does not teach the polygonal mesh and does not imply voxels shown alongside polygons for co-visualization. They also argue Aamodt does not teach implant specific prediction “in place of the selected structure.”
Examiner replies that Aamodt teaches in Paragraph 5 “overlaying the intraoral surface scan data and the volumetric scan data to generate an integrated patient model…”. This explicitly teaches receiving the superimposition of a volumetric image and a surface scan image. Aamodt also teaches in Paragraph 35 that the surface scan data is intraoral surface scan data. The Applicant’s Specification in Paragraph 23 and Paragraph 141 acknowledges that intraoral surface scan images (IOS) are surface scan images and also a polygonal mesh. Thus, Aamodt teaches the polygonal mesh. Since Aamodt also teaches the superimposition of the volumetric image and surface scan image, then this also teaches voxels, from the volumetric image, shown alongside polygons for co-visualization.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Aamodt is not used to teach implant specific prediction but Glor is. Aamodt Paragraphs 40 and 43 teaches the selection of the anatomical structure and Glor Paragraph 23 teaches implant specific prediction. Combined they teach the implant specific prediction in place of the selected structure.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a precomputed superimposition”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
10. Conclusion: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below.
Drawings
11. The drawings were received on December 18, 2025. Figure 25 and 26 replacement drawings are acceptable and entered. Figure 27 replacement drawings are unacceptable and not entered.
The drawings are objected to because:
There are two figures marked as Figure 27, one on page 34 and one on page 35. Furthermore, Fig. 27 (continued) is not proper labeling. 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) states that "Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter". The Examiner acknowledges that these are part of the same figure. To indicate that, 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) requires that the figures meant to form one complete view need to be followed by a capital letter and not the term (continued). Thus, the applicant must rename the figures as Figure 27A and Figure 27B.
Fig. 13 is repeated three times. 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) states that "Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter". Thus, the applicant must rename the figures as Figure 13A and Figure 13B and Figure 13C.
Fig. 19 is repeated two times. 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) states that "Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter". Thus, the applicant must rename the figures as Figure 19A and Figure 19B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
12. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This is an interpretation of the claims, not a rejection or objection.
13. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an input module, a segmentation module, a module for generating, and an interface module in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This is not an objection but a statement of how the claim will be interpreted. Structure for the modules can be found in Paragraphs 144-148 of the Specification.
Claim Objections
14. Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 21, “and/or” should be either “and” or “or”.
Line 22, missing a period at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
15. Claim 24 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5, “undo/redo” should be “undo or redo”. Appropriate correction is required.
16. Claim5 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3, “on/off” should be “on or off”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
18. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
19. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 15-19, 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Glor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0162813 A1), hereinafter referred to as Glor, in view of Aamodt (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306010 A1).
20. Regarding claim 1, Glor teaches a system for generating an implant planning interface, said system comprising: a processor; a non-transitory storage element coupled to the processor; encoded instructions stored in the non-transitory storage element, wherein the encoded instructions when implemented by the processor, configure the system to (Paragraph 96-97, Figure 30 mentions a processor 103 executing instructions from the memory 105):
receive a (Paragraph 13 mentions using volume data from a volumetric scan for implant planning; Paragraph 26 mentions the 3D model of a tooth setup can come from volume images; Paragraph 142 mentions using volumetric scans to get a 3D model of the patient’s jaw);
segment (Paragraph 16 mentions identifying different anatomical elements in the jaw and being able to select zones where implants can or cannot be placed; Paragraph 142 mentions identifying spatial boundaries for each tooth in the 3D model from the volumetric scan images; Figure 28 shows a segmentation step after receiving the CT scan, which is considered a volumetric scan, and detecting the teeth);
predict at least one of a tooth crown or implant shape and position in place of the selected anatomical structure (Paragraph 18 mentions a step ‘c’ which determines the implant dimension, position, orientation, and configuration; Paragraph 51-52 mentions that the automatic or semi-automatic dental implant planning involves aesthetical considerations, like the shape of the tooth, and automatic implant placement; Paragraph 55 mentions that the implant dimensions, positions, directions, and configurations are automatically proposed after analyzing the volume image data; Paragraph 142 mentions finding restorative spaces for implants; Paragraph 169 mentions the planning environment suggests implant types and configurations);
generate a plan for placement of the crown or implant based on the predicted tooth crown or implant shape and positioning (Figure 28 displays an implant plan is generated after scoring the placement and configuration of the implant; Paragraph 52 mentions implant planning can be generated and provided in the form of a surgical guide; Paragraph 57 mentions the system prepares automatic dental implant plans; Paragraph 77 mentions being able to select or improve the generated implant plan);
and provide an implant planning interface for a practitioner, wherein the practitioner can alter at least one of the received superimposed image, segmented superimposed image, and/or the generated plan with respect to the tooth crown or implant shape, position, or site (Paragraph 163 mentions allowing a physician to alter the visual representation of the 3D model by dividing it into a visible and non-visible part; Paragraph 171 mentions user interaction is required to fine-tune the treatment plan).
However, Glor fails to teach receiving a superimposition of a volumetric image and a surface scan images, wherein the volumetric image is a three-dimensional voxel array of a maxillofacial anatomy of a patient, the surface scan image is a polygonal mesh of a oral cavity of the patient, and the superimposition renders a unified visual depicting structures captured by the three-dimensional voxel array alongside surface details represented by the polygonal mesh; and segmenting the superimposed image into a set of distinct anatomical structures for individual selection.
Aamodt teaches receiving a superimposition of a volumetric image and a surface scan images (Paragraph 5 teaches receiving a surface scan and volumetric scan data of a patient’s dentition and overlaying them both. The overlay of the surface scan and volumetric scan is a superimposition), wherein the volumetric image is a three-dimensional voxel array of a maxillofacial anatomy of a patient (Paragraph 5-6 teaches the volumetric image can be a CBCT scan and includes data on the dentition and craniofacial structure which can be considered the maxillofacial anatomy of the patient. Aamodt also teaches that the data is three-dimensional which means the volumetric image is a three-dimensional voxel array. The Applicant also admits in Paragraph 23 of the Applicant’s Specification that CBCT scans are volumetric images. Thus, the Applicant agrees that CBCT scans are three-dimensional voxel arrays), the surface scan image is a polygonal mesh of a oral cavity of the patient (Paragraph 5 teaches the surface scan is of the dentition or oral cavity of the patient; Paragraph 35 teaches using an intraoral scanner to receive three-dimensional intraoral surface scan data which creates the surface scan image or intraoral scan image (IOS). It is known in the art that intraoral scans create polygonal meshes from the three-dimensional point cloud obtained from the intraoral scanner. The Applicant also admits in Paragraph 23 of the Applicant’s Specification that IOS images are surface scan images. Thus, the Applicant agrees that IOS images are a polygonal mesh), and the superimposition renders a unified visual depicting structures captured by the three-dimensional voxel array alongside surface details represented by the polygonal mesh (Paragraph 44 and Figure 9 teaches rendering a superimposition 900 of the volumetric image and surface scan image. The superimposed image in Figure 9 is a unified visual that shows structures like the teeth captured by both the volumetric image, which is taught to be a 3D voxel array by being a CBCT scan, and the surface scan image, which is taught to be an IOS image and thus a polygonal mesh);
and segmenting the superimposed image into a set of distinct anatomical structures for individual selection (Paragraph 40 and 43 teaches segmenting the model with the surface scan and volumetric data into separate anatomical features for individual selection. It also teaches segmentation can happen after the surface scan image and volumetric image are superimposed to create a superimposed image or integrated patient model).
Glor and Aamodt are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of creating treatment plans based on dentition data. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system for generating an implant planning interface with the superimposed image and segmentation taught by Aamodt in order to create a high precision model of the patient’s teeth (Aamodt Paragraph 44).
21. Regarding claim 2, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 1. Glor further teaches the system wherein the volumetric image and surface scan image are a superimposition of an upper and lower jaw of a patient, and generates a 3-D model of the patient's maxillofacial anatomy (Paragraph 26 mentions the step of generating the 3D model can comprise of multiple images of the patient’s jaw which is part of the patient’s maxillofacial anatomy. Comprising of multiple images can be considered a superimposition; Paragraph 52 mentions patients can be scanned to obtain a 3D jaw model).
22. Regarding claim 3, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 2. Glor further teaches the system wherein the anatomical structures segmented are at least one of a tooth, maxilla, mandible, nerve canal, incisive canal, sinus, airways, cranial, or soft tissue (Paragraph 16 mentions anatomical elements detected can include teeth, nerves, and bone; Paragraph 142 mentions identifying the spatial boundaries for each tooth).
23. Regarding claim 5, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 2. Glor further teaches the system wherein the 3-D model serves as an input and generates at least one of a clinically predictive crown, implant, or sleeve shape and position based on an available anatomic condition determined from the 3-D model (Paragraph 62-67 mentions using a 3D model, obtained in step ‘a’, and then detecting a placement and configuration for implants, step ‘c’).
24. Regarding claim 15, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 1. Glor further teaches wherein the implant planning interface comprises a planning panel, wherein the planning panel enables at least one of: selecting an implant system and an implant site to start an implant planning (Paragraph 169 mentions providing the expert system will suggest a preliminary implant configuration which includes the placement and implant type); approving or adjusting an AI-generated position and properties of the crown, implant, and a sleeve for each selected implant site (Paragraph 18 mentions selecting or improving an implant plan); triggering an AI-generation of a surgical guide; or approving planning results for downloading a surgical report and a 3-D model of the AI-generated surgical guide.
25. Regarding claim 16, Glor teaches a system for generating an implant planning interface, said system comprising: an input module for receiving and processing superimposition of a volumetric (Paragraph 13 mentions using volume data from a volumetric scan for implant planning; Paragraph 26 mentions the 3D model of a tooth setup can come from volume images; Paragraph 142 mentions using volumetric scans to get a 3D model of the patient’s jaw; Paragraph 181 teaches volumetric data are input into the computer through storage devices. This can be considered an input event source);
a segmentation module for segmenting the processed superimposed image into distinct anatomical structures for prediction of a crown or implant shape and position (Paragraph 16 mentions identifying different anatomical elements in the jaw and being able to select zones where implants can or cannot be placed; Paragraph 18 mentions in step ‘c’ determining the implant dimension, position, orientation, and configuration; Paragraph 51-52 mentions that the automatic or semi-automatic dental implant planning involves aesthetical considerations, like the shape of the tooth, and automatic implant placement; Paragraph 142 mentions identifying spatial boundaries for each tooth in the 3D model from the volumetric scan images and finding restorative spaces for implants; Figure 28 shows a segmentation step after receiving the CT scan, which is considered a volumetric scan, and detecting the teeth);
a module for generating a plan for placement of the crown or implant based on the crown or implant shape and position (Figure 28 displays an implant plan is generated after scoring the placement and configuration of the implant; Paragraph 52 mentions implant planning can be generated and provided in the form of a surgical guide; Paragraph 57 mentions providing a system to prepare automatic dental implant plans; Paragraph 77 mentions being able to select or improve the generated implant plan);
and an interface module for facilitating practitioner interaction with the system, wherein the practitioner can at least one of evaluate or alter at least one of the received superimposed image, segmented processed superimposed image, or the generated plan with respect to the crown or implant shape, position, or site (Paragraph 163 mentions allowing a physician to alter the received volumetric image by cutting the 3D model or adjusting a smile line that is superimposed on the received volumetric image; Paragraph 171 mentions user interaction is required to fine-tune the treatment plan).
However, Glor fails to teach an input module for receiving and processing superimposition of a volumetric and a surface scan
Aamodt teaches an input module for receiving and processing superimposition of a volumetric and a surface scan(Paragraph 5 teaches receiving a surface scan and volumetric scan data of a patient’s dentition and overlaying them both. The overlay of the surface scan and volumetric scan is a superimposition; Paragraph 35 teaches the surface scan images come from an intraoral scanning device which can be considered an image gathering source; Paragraph 38 teaches the volumetric scan images can come from a volumetric scanner which can be considered an image gathering source); a segmentation module for segmenting the processed superimposed image into distinct anatomical structures (Paragraph 40 and 43 teaches segmenting the model with the surface scan and volumetric data into separate anatomical features for individual selection. It also teaches segmentation can happen after the surface scan image and volumetric image are superimposed to create a superimposed image or integrated patient model).
Glor and Aamodt are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of creating treatment plans based on dentition data. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system for generating an implant planning interface with the superimposed image and segmentation taught by Aamodt in order to create a high precision model of the patient’s teeth (Aamodt Paragraph 44).
26. Regarding claim 17, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 16. Glor further teaches wherein the segmentation module for segmenting distinct anatomical structures further includes a functionality for numbering each segmented tooth (Paragraph 174 mentions assigning a tooth number for each tooth instance recognized).
27. Regarding claim 18, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 16. Glor further teaches the system wherein the module for generating the plan for placement of the crown or implant shape and position (Paragraph 18 step ‘c’ mentions determining candidate implant dimensions, positions, orientations, and configurations. Then in step ‘d’ obtaining the implant plan) uses available anatomic conditions in a 3D model of a patient's head (Paragraph 142 mentions the 3D model is of parts of the jaw and tooth which are part of the patient’s head; Paragraph 51 mentions deciding the implant dimensions, positions, direction, and configuration is based on the anatomic conditions like the quantity and quality of bone and emergence profile; Paragraph 62-67 mentions using a 3D model, obtained in step ‘a’ and detecting zones in the jaw for the implant based on the anatomical and artificial elements in the jaw bone, step ‘b’).
28. Regarding claim 19, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 18. Glor further teaches the system wherein the plan generated aids in deriving a clinically appropriate shape of a surgical guide (Paragraph 52-54 teaches the plan for the implant can be transferred to the patient through a surgical guide in order to identify and replace missing teeth using verified implant dimensions and positions. Thus, the surgical guide can be considered to have a clinically appropriate shape).
29. Regarding claim 23, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 16. Glor further teaches the system wherein the interface module provides visualization of a 3-D model of a patient's head with segmented anatomic and artificial objects, based on selected display settings (Paragraph 142 mentions the 3D model is of parts of the jaw and tooth which are part of the patient’s head; Paragraph 16 mentions identifying different anatomical and artificial elements in the jaw; Paragraph 142 mentions identifying spatial boundaries for each tooth in the 3D model from the volumetric scan images).
30. Regarding claim 27, Glor teaches a method for generating an implant planning interface, said method comprising: receiving superimposition of a volumetric (Paragraph 13 mentions using volume data from a volumetric scan for implant planning; Paragraph 26 mentions the 3D model of a tooth setup can come from volume images; Paragraph 142 mentions using volumetric scans to get a 3D model of the patient’s jaw);
segmenting the processed superimposed image into distinct anatomical structures predictive of a crown or implant shape and position (Paragraph 16 mentions identifying different anatomical elements in the jaw and being able to select zones where implants can or cannot be placed; Paragraph 142 mentions identifying spatial boundaries for each tooth in the 3D model from the volumetric scan images; Figure 28 shows a segmentation step after receiving the CT scan, which is considered a volumetric scan, and detecting the teeth);
suggesting at least one of a crown or implant based on the crown or implant shape, position, implant site, or a surgical guide design (Paragraph 18 mentions in step ‘c’ determining the implant dimension, position, orientation, and configuration; Paragraph 51-52 mentions that the automatic or semi-automatic dental implant planning involves aesthetical considerations, like the shape of the tooth, and automatic implant placement; Paragraph 55 mentions that the implant dimensions, positions, directions, and configurations are automatically proposed after analyzing the volume image data; Paragraph 142 mentions finding restorative spaces for implants; Paragraph 169 mentions the planning environment suggests implant types and configurations);
and providing the implant planning interface for a practitioner to at least one of evaluate or approve or customize the suggestions (Paragraph 23-24 mentions means for obtaining the implant plans, comparing them as a form of evaluation, and finally selecting or improving on the plan; Paragraph 171 mentions user interaction is required to fine-tune the treatment plan).
However, Glor fails to teach receiving superimposition of a volumetric and a surface scan images for processing; and segmenting the processed superimposed image into distinct anatomical structures.
Aamodt teaches receiving superimposition of a volumetric and a surface scan images for processing (Paragraph 5 teaches receiving a surface scan and volumetric scan data of a patient’s dentition and overlaying them both. The overlay of the surface scan and volumetric scan is a superimposition); and segmenting the processed superimposed image into distinct anatomical structures (Paragraph 40 and 43 teaches segmenting the model with the surface scan and volumetric data into separate anatomical features for individual selection. It also teaches segmentation can happen after the surface scan image and volumetric image are superimposed to create a superimposed image or integrated patient model).
Glor and Aamodt are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of creating treatment plans based on dentition data. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for generating an implant planning interface with the superimposed image and segmentation taught by Aamodt in order to create a high precision model of the patient’s teeth (Aamodt Paragraph 44).
31. Claim(s) 4 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0162813 A1), hereinafter referred to as Glor, in view of Aamodt (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306010 A1) as applied to claim 3 and 16 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0022252 A1 -- cited in the IDS), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
32. Regarding claim 4, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 3. Glor further teaches the system wherein the segmented anatomical structures appear as distinct 3-D objects on the 3-D model (Paragraph 142, Figure 10 mentions creating spatial boundaries, marker 7, for each tooth which can have grids projected on the surfaces in the 3D model)
However, Glor fails to teach outlined by contours on any one of a multiplanar reformation or panoramic reconstruction.
Chen teaches outlined by contours on any one of a multiplanar reformation or panoramic reconstruction (Paragraph 61, Figure 8 shows contour lines, 810 and 812, separating and segmenting out the teeth on a panoramic image; Claim 10 also mentions a panoramic image with an outlined and segmented tooth in the image).
Glor, Aamodt, and Chen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of identifying teeth and analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the segmented structures in Glor in view of Aamodt with the contour lines on a panoramic image in Chen in order to improve the identification of teeth positions (Chen Paragraph 8).
33. Regarding claim 22, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 16. However, Glor and Aamodt fail to teach the system wherein the interface module provides a panoramic reconstruction of a CBCT scan, visualizing a curve of a patient's dental arch in a flat panoramic image.
Chen teaches the system wherein the interface module provides a panoramic reconstruction of a CBCT scan, visualizing a curve of a patient's dental arch in a flat panoramic image (Paragraph 35 mentions selecting a curve from a dental CT volume and generating a flattened panoramic view of a dental arch which can be seen in Figure 2).
Glor, Aamodt, and Chen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of identifying teeth and analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt with the panoramic image in Chen in order to improve the identification of teeth positions (Chen Paragraph 8).
34. Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0162813 A1), hereinafter referred to as Glor, in view of Aamodt (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306010 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0113310 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
35. Regarding claim 6, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 5. However, Glor and Aamodt fail to teach the system wherein the predicted crown, implant and sleeve shape and position as an input derives a clinically appropriate shape of a surgical guide.
Lee teaches the system wherein the predicted crown, implant and sleeve shape and position as an input derives a clinically appropriate shape of a surgical guide (Paragraph 33 mentions creating an implant placing guide, which can be considered a surgical guide, after getting the implant planning information; Paragraph 34 mentions the implant planning information contains information on the size, type, and position of the fixture or implant to be placed; Paragraph 39 mentions the processing file to create the surgical guide may include information on position of the sleeve and region to remove. Region to remove indicates knowing the shape of the sleeve to remove the region).
Glor and Lee are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt with the creation of a surgical guide in Lee in order to easily plan and correct the surgical guide (Lee Paragraph 10).
36. Regarding claim 8, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 5. However, Glor fails to teach the system wherein the predicted crown, implant and sleeve shape and position as an input derives a report saved and exported as a pdf file.
Lee teaches the system wherein the predicted crown, implant and sleeve shape and position as an input derives a report saved and exported as a pdf file (Paragraph 34 mentions implant planning information can be saved as a PDF file; Paragraph 34 mentions the implant planning information contains information on the size, type, and position of the fixture or implant to be placed).
Glor and Lee are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt with the saving the report in a PDF file in Lee in order to transmit and store the file to other servers (Lee Paragraph 52).
37. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0162813 A1), hereinafter referred to as Glor, in view of Aamodt (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306010 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0113310 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee, and Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0144422 A1), hereinafter referred to as Choi.
Regarding claim 7, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 5. However, Glor and Aamodt fail to teach the system wherein the predicted crown, implant and sleeve shape and position as an input derives a 3-D model of the surgical guide saved and exported as an stl file.
Lee teaches wherein the predicted crown, implant and sleeve shape and position as an input derives a 3-D model of the surgical guide saved (Paragraph 33 mentions creating an implant placing guide, which can be considered a surgical guide, after getting the implant planning information; Paragraph 34 mentions the implant planning information contains information on the size, type, and position of the fixture or implant to be placed; Paragraph 39 mentions the processing file to create the surgical guide may include information on position of the sleeve and region to remove. Region to remove indicates knowing the shape of the sleeve to remove the region; Paragraph 79 teaches the surgical guide is created from a three-dimensional image).
Glor and Lee are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt with the creation of a surgical guide in Lee in order to easily plan and correct the guide (Lee Paragraph 10).
However, Glor, Aamodt, and Lee do not teach exporting as a stl file.
Choi teaches exporting as a stl file (Paragraph 4 teaches using a virtual mold to plan a dental surgical guide; Paragraph 41 mentions the virtual mold is saved as a STL format).
Glor, Lee, and Choi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of planning implants. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system taught by Glor in view of Aamodt and Lee with the STL file taught in Choi in order to save the surgical guide model in a file that is compatible with a majority of rapid prototyping systems (Choi Paragraph 41).
38. Claim(s) 9-10, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0162813 A1), hereinafter referred to as Glor, in view of Aamodt (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306010 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (Korean Patent Publication No. 10834435 B1), hereinafter referred to as Choi 1, and Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0364659 A1), hereinafter referred to as Choi 2.
39. Regarding claim 9, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Glor and Aamodt fail to teach the system wherein the implant planning interface enables editing of the crown/implant shape and position on a 3-D model or scene and to adjust the position of the implant on a multiplanar reformation view.
Choi 1 teaches the system wherein the implant planning interface enables editing of the crown/implant shape and position on a 3-D model or scene (Paragraph 39 mentions modifying the position or size of the implant object according to the user’s command. Paragraph 40 mentions the user can change the shape by selecting a different fixture from the product library)
Glor and Choi 1 are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt with the editing of the shape and position in Choi 1 in order to increase the accuracy of the procedure and safely apply it in an actual clinical setting (Choi 1 Paragraph 4)
However, Choi 1 fails to teach adjusting the position of the implant on a multiplanar reformation view.
Choi 2 teaches adjusting the position of the implant on a multiplanar reformation view (Paragraph 43, Figure 2 mentions the user can adjust the position of the implant object on an interface; Paragraph 93 mentions the view in Figure 2, which the user can adjust the position, can be an axial, coronal, sagittal, or cross-sectional view. These views can be considered multiplanar reformation views. Also mentions in paragraph 93 that modifying an object, like its position, on one view can modify it in the other views as well.)
Glor, Choi 1, and Choi 2 are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt and Choi 1 with the adjusting of a position on a multiplanar reformation view in Choi 2 in order to allow the user to easily modify the position of the implant in multiple views (Choi 2 Paragraph 93)
40. Regarding claim 10, Glor in view of Aamodt, Choi 1, and Choi 2 teaches the limitations of claim 9. However, Glor, Aamodt, and Choi 1 fail to teach the system wherein the implant planning interface enables visualizing scan slices in three projections: orthogonal view, tangential view, axial view and pan, zoom in and out, scroll back and forth, or rotate the axes of the multiplanar reformation view.
Choi 2 teaches the system wherein the implant planning interface enables visualizing scan slices in three projections: orthogonal view, tangential view, axial view (Paragraph 93 mentions the view where the user can adjust the position of the implant can be axial, coronal, sagittal, or cross-sectional. The views can be seen in Figure 2) and pan, zoom in and out, scroll back and forth, or rotate the axes of the multiplanar reformation view (Paragraph 11 mentions being able to rotate grouped objects in the image model. Paragraph 93 mentions the view can be axial, coronal, sagittal, or cross-sectional which means rotating the objects in the image model means rotating the multiplanar reformation view).
Glor, Choi 1, and Choi 2 are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt and Choi 1 with the views and rotating in Choi 2 in order to allow the user to easily modify the position of the implant in multiple views (Choi 2 Paragraph 93).
41. Regarding claim 12, Glor in view of Aamodt, Choi 1, and Choi 2 teaches the limitations of claim 9. Glor further teaches the system wherein the implant planning interface enables visualization of a 3D model of the patient's head with segmented anatomic and artificial objects, based on selected display settings (Paragraph 142 mentions showing 3D models of the parts of jaw and teeth which are part of the patient’s head. Also mentions identifying spatial boundaries for each tooth which can be considered part of the segmentation step shown in Figure 28; Paragraph 16 mentions identifying different anatomical elements in the jaw which include teeth and bone) and enable the practitioner to at least one of pan the multiplanar reformation view, zoom in and out, rotate the 3D model, select any segmented object, or alter a visual representation of the 3D model (Paragraph 16, step ‘a’ mentions selecting zones where implants can or cannot be placed. The zones can be the spatial boundaries identified as explained in Paragraph 142; Paragraph 163 mentions altering the visual representation of the 3D model by dividing it into a visible and non-visible part).
42. Regarding claim 20, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 16. However, Glor and Aamodt fail to teach the system wherein the interface module provides instruments to adjust the shape and/or position of the crown on the 3-D scene and to adjust the position of the implant on multiplanar reformation.
Choi 1 teaches the system wherein the interface module provides instruments to adjust the shape and/or position of the crown on a 3-D model or scene (Paragraph 39 mentions modifying the position or size of the implant object according to the user’s command. Paragraph 40 mentions the user can change the shape by selecting a different fixture from the product library)
Glor and Choi 1 are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt with the editing of the shape and position in Choi 1 in order to increase the accuracy of the procedure and safely apply it in an actual clinical setting (Choi 1 Paragraph 4)
However, Choi 1 fails to teach adjusting the position of the implant on multiplanar reformation.
Choi 2 teaches adjusting the position of the implant on multiplanar reformation (Paragraph 43, Figure 2 mentions the user can adjust the position of the implant object on an interface; Paragraph 93 mentions the view in Figure 2, which the user can adjust the position, can be an axial, coronal, sagittal, or cross-sectional view. These views can be considered multiplanar reformation views. Also mentions in paragraph 93 that modifying an object, like its position, on one view can modify it in the other views as well.)
Glor, Aamodt, Choi 1, and Choi 2 are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt and Choi 1 with the adjusting of a position on a multiplanar reformation in Choi 2 in order to allow the user to easily modify the position of the implant in multiple views (Choi 2 Paragraph 93).
43. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0162813 A1), hereinafter referred to as Glor, in view of Aamodt (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306010 A1), Choi et al. (Korean Patent Publication No. 10834435 B1), hereinafter referred to as Choi 1, and Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0364659 A1), hereinafter referred to as Choi 2, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0022252 A1 -- cited in the IDS), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 11, Glor in view of Aamodt, Choi 1, and Choi 2 teaches the limitations of claim 9. However, Glor, Aamodt, Choi 1, and Choi 2 fail to teach the system wherein the implant planning interface enables visualization of a reformatted section of CBCT scan, which visualizes a curve of a patient's dental arch in a flat panoramic image.
Chen teaches the system wherein the implant planning interface enables visualization of a reformatted section of CBCT scan, which visualizes a curve of a patient's dental arch in a flat panoramic image (Paragraph 35 mentions selecting a curve and generating a flattened panoramic view of a dental arch which can be seen in Figure 2).
Glor, Choi 1, Choi 2, and Chen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of identifying teeth and analyzing dental images. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt, Choi 1, and Choi 2 with the panoramic image in Chen in order to improve the identification of teeth positions (Chen Paragraph 8).
44. Claim(s) 13, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0162813 A1), hereinafter referred to as Glor, in view of Aamodt (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306010 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0364659 A1), hereinafter referred to as Choi.
45. Regarding claim 13, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Glor and Aamodt fail to teach the system wherein the implant planning interface comprises a toolbar, allowing the practitioner to activate or deactivate instruments supporting an implant planning, including at least one of a view mode, implant-focused mode, brightness-contrast instrument, ruler instrument, heatmap of teeth contacts instrument, or undo or redo instruments.
Choi teaches the system wherein the implant planning interface comprises a toolbar, allowing the practitioner to activate or deactivate instruments supporting an implant planning (Paragraph 41-42, Figure 2 shows a GUI menu, which can be considered a toolbar, that helps with implant planning. The user can click on icons to activate and deactivate those tools), including at least one of a view mode, implant-focused mode, brightness-contrast instrument, ruler instrument, heatmap of teeth contacts instrument, or undo or redo instruments (Paragraph 43 mentions an icon 61a that we can consider an instrument to enable an implant-focused mode which allows the user to focus on moving or rotating the implant’s position).
Glor and Choi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt with the toolbar in Choi in order to allow the user to easily modify the position and size of objects (Choi Paragraph 33).
46. Regarding claim 21, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 16. However, Glor and Aamodt fail to teach the system wherein the interface module provides multiplanar reformation views in orthogonal, tangential, and axial projections, and tools to pan, zoom, scroll, and rotate the multiplanar reformation view.
Choi teaches the system wherein the interface module provides multiplanar reformation views in orthogonal, tangential, and axial projections (Paragraph 93 mentions the view where the user can adjust the position of the implant can be axial, coronal, sagittal, or cross-sectional. The views can be seen in Figure 2), and tools to pan, zoom, scroll, and rotate the view (Paragraph 11 mentions being able to rotate grouped objects in the image model. Paragraph 93 mentions the view can be axial, coronal, sagittal, or cross-sectional which means rotating the objects in the image model means rotating the multiplanar reformation view).
Glor and Choi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt with the views and rotating in Choi in order to allow the user to easily modify the position of the implant in multiple views (Choi Paragraph 93).
47. Regarding claim 24, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 16. However, Glor and Aamodt fail to teach the system wherein the interface module provides a toolbar that allows to activate/deactivate different instruments supporting an implant planning, including at least one of a view mode, implant-focused mode, brightness-contrast instrument, ruler instrument, heatmap of teeth contacts instrument, or undo/redo instruments.
Choi teaches the system wherein the interface module provides a toolbar that allows to activate/deactivate different instruments supporting the implant planning (Paragraph 41-42, Figure 2 shows a GUI menu, which can be considered a toolbar, that helps with implant planning. The user can click on icons to activate and deactivate those tools), including at least one of a view mode, implant-focused mode, brightness-contrast instrument, ruler instrument, heatmap of teeth contacts instrument, or undo/redo instruments (Paragraph 43 mentions an icon 61a that we can consider an instrument to enable an implant-focused mode which allows the user to focus on moving or rotating the implant’s position).
Glor and Choi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt with the toolbar in Choi in order to allow the user to easily modify the position and size of objects (Choi Paragraph 33).
48. Claim(s) 14 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0162813 A1), hereinafter referred to as Glor, in view of Aamodt (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306010 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grimaud et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0013690 A1), hereinafter referred to as Grimaud, and Kuo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0290269 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kuo.
49. Regarding claim 14, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Glor and Aamodt fail to teach the system wherein the implant planning interface comprises an objects panel, wherein said objects panel is a representation of all segmented anatomic and artificial objects in a tree structure and further allowing the practitioner to at least one of switch on or off a visibility of these objects and adjust their color and transparency level.
Grimaud teaches the system wherein the implant planning interface comprises an objects panel, wherein said objects panel is a representation of all segmented anatomic and artificial objects in a tree structure and further allowing the practitioner to at least one of switch on or off a visibility of these objects and adjust their color (Paragraph 5 mentions organizing objects in a 3D model as part of a tree structure. It then mentions allowing the user to make the object invisible and change the highlighting, which can be considered adjusting the color)
Glor and Grimaud are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of visualizing a 3D model. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system with the segmented anatomic and artificial objects in Glor in view of Aamodt with the tree representation, visibility, and color changing system in Grimaud in order to create a lightweight system when designing and assembling parts (Grimaud Paragraph 2-3).
However, Grimaud fails to teach adjusting the transparency level.
Kuo teaches adjusting the transparency level (Paragraph 28 mentions editing the transparency of teeth in the model).
Glor, Grimaud, and Kuo are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of visualizing a 3D model. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tree system with segmented anatomic objects and artificial objects in Glor in view of Aamodt and Grimaud with the adjusting of transparency level in Kuo in order to prevent other objects in the 3D model from blocking the positioning of the desired reference, like the implant (Kuo Paragraph 28)
50. Regarding claim 25, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 16. However, Glor and Aamodt fail to teach the system wherein the interface module provides an objects panel displaying all segmented anatomic and artificial objects in a tree structure, allowing to at least one of switch on/off the visibility of these objects or adjust their color and transparency level.
Grimaud teaches the system wherein the interface module provides an objects panel displaying all segmented anatomic and artificial objects in a tree structure, allowing to at least one of switch on/off a visibility of these objects or adjust their color (Paragraph 5 mentions organizing objects in a 3D model as part of a tree structure. It then mentions allowing the user to make the object invisible and change the highlighting, which can be considered adjusting the color)
Glor and Grimaud are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of visualizing a 3D model. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system with the segmented anatomic and artificial objects in Glor in view of Aamodt with the tree representation, visibility, and color changing system in Grimaud in order to create a lightweight system when designing and assembling parts (Grimaud Paragraph 2-3).
However, Grimaud fails to teach adjusting the transparency level.
Kuo teaches adjusting the transparency level (Paragraph 28 mentions editing the transparency of teeth in the model).
Glor, Grimaud, and Kuo are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of visualizing a 3D model. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tree system with segmented anatomic objects and artificial objects in Glor in view of Aamodt and Grimaud with the adjusting of transparency level in Kuo in order to prevent other objects in the 3D model from blocking the positioning of the desired reference, like the implant (Kuo Paragraph 28)
51. Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0162813 A1), hereinafter referred to as Glor, in view of Aamodt (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306010 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0113310 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee, and Choi et al. (Korean Patent Publication No. 10834435 B1), hereinafter referred to as Choi.
Regarding claim 26, Glor in view of Aamodt teaches the limitations of claim 16. Glor further teaches the system wherein the interface module provides a planning panel for the planning of implant treatment, comprising steps for selecting planning options (Paragraph 18, step ‘e’ and ‘f’ mention comparing and selecting an implant plan), surgical guide (Paragraph 52 mentions transferring the planning to a patient through means of a surgical guide),
However, Glor and Aamodt fail to teach adjusting AI-generated implant properties and approving planning results.
Lee teaches (Paragraph 66 mentions the plan reviewing terminal reviews the results and approves it).
Glor and Lee are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the planning panel in Glor in view of Aamodt with the step of approving the planning results as taught in Lee in order to confirm that the implant plan is appropriately designed and also give the chance for any corrections (Lee Paragraph 66).
However, Lee fails to teach adjusting AI-generated implant properties.
Choi teaches adjusting AI-generated implant properties (Paragraph 47 mentions the implant placement can be selected by an automated algorithm which means it allows the use of AI; Paragraph 39 mentions modifying the position or size of the implant object after the implant has been auto-placed according to a user’s command; Paragraph 40 also mentions changing the shape of the implant by selecting a different fixture from the product library).
Glor, Lee, and Choi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of implant planning. Aamodt is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of analyzing dental images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implant planning system in Glor in view of Aamodt and Lee with the editing of the AI-generated implant properties in Choi in order to increase the accuracy of the procedure and safely apply it in an actual clinical setting (Choi Paragraph 4).
Conclusion
52. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571)272-2330. 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615