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 Status
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 6/29/2026 have been received and considered. No claim has been added or cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
(1) Applicant states:
PNG
media_image1.png
300
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Remarks p 9.
The Examiner disagrees.
Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo already teaches “the unit of replacement” is a “3D shape model.” In particular, Kuo discloses using a contralateral tooth as a substitute when scanned data are unavailable for a tooth, stating “Thus, if a digital tooth image created from tooth 314 had a partially blocked or unexposed surface, then contralateral tooth 316 may be scanned and the digital data ‘mirrored’ to provide a substantially symmetric tooth to tooth 314 to be used as the generic tooth model in accordance with the present invention.” Kuo col. 5 lines 23-33. Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo does not explicitly; but Ikeda teaches the unavailability of the scanned data could be due to a missing tooth.
The primary reference Ryakhovsky also suggests a similar teaching, stating “Mutual causality of the virtual planning of teeth position orthodontic correction and teeth form prosthetic correction originates from the fact that artificial teeth from the data bank for prosthetic correction are scaled taking into account sizes and forms of the patient's available virtual teeth, symmetrical tooth and/or proportionally to the available teeth in case of missing one or several teeth, . . ..”
(2) Applicant states:
PNG
media_image2.png
176
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Remarks pp. 8-9.
The Examiner disagrees.
Regarding the comment about “substitution of a 2D image,” see the Examiner’s response under (1).
Ikeda is not relied upon to teach shape-combing the 3D scanned crown data with a template root. Kuo is mainly relied upon for the teaching and please review the Examiner’s rejection analyses. However, the Examiner would like to include Kuo Fig. 1B, which succinctly shows separating crown and root models:
PNG
media_image3.png
392
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
(3) Applicant states:
PNG
media_image4.png
282
696
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Remarks p. 11.
The Examiner disagrees.
The “generating a closed tooth by shape-combining [the scanned crown of the symmetric tooth] + [the anatomical root of the template tooth of the corresponding tooth number]” is taught by the combination of Ryakhovsky, Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay.
Golay teaches combing a scanned crown of a tooth with a dental root of a template tooth:
“A more complete representation of the tooth roots may be obtained using standardized, template 3D virtual tooth roots, applying the X-Ray data to the template tooth roots and modifying their shape accordingly, and them applying the modified template tooth root to the scan data of the crown to create a scaled, complete virtual tooth object including tooth roots.” Golay ¶ 36.
After the combination of Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo and Ikeda with Golay, a person with ordinary skills in the art would know that the modification of virtual tooth roots are made based on the availability of the corresponding X-Ray data.
After the combination of Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo and Ikeda with Golay, particularly due to the teaching of Kuo and Ikeda, the scanned crown of a tooth corresponds to the contralateral symmetric tooth of the patient.
(4) Applicant states:
PNG
media_image5.png
214
700
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Remarks pp. 11-12.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner stated, “Note that teeth models in Ryakhovsky fig. 6 are combinations of teeth and dental root of a template tooth of a corresponding tooth number. With respect to “scanned teeth,” Ryakhovsky discloses, “. . . characterized in that virtual models of teeth, lower jaw, elements of the temporo-mandibular joint are obtained on a basis of direct or indirect scanning.” Claim 4. The Examiner’s secondary reference Kuo provides consistent and stronger teaching about this feature.” Non-Final Act. p. 10.
Kuo’s teaching is clear:
PNG
media_image6.png
250
294
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kuo provides teachings that are similar to Ikeda’s, stating “In one embodiment, a contralateral pair of a partially represented crown may be used to provide the generic tooth model. For example, as shown in FIG. 3C, tooth 314 has a contralateral pair--contralateral tooth 316--which has substantial bilateral symmetry (mirror image symmetry) to tooth 314. Thus, if a digital tooth image created from tooth 314 had a partially blocked or unexposed surface, then contralateral tooth 316 may be scanned and the digital data ‘mirrored’ to provide a substantially symmetric tooth to tooth 314 to be used as the generic tooth model in accordance with the present invention.” Kuo col. 5 lines 23-33.
PNG
media_image3.png
392
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kuo explains, “Typically, the generic typodont tooth surface geometry data represents the same type of tooth (e.g. molar, canine, bicuspid, incisor and the like) as the actual tooth image it is intended to model, and may also be the same numbered tooth as the actual patient tooth, using conventional tooth numbering and identification systems.” Kuo col. 4 lines 1-12.
(5) Applicant states:
PNG
media_image7.png
152
698
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Remarks p. 12.
The Examiner disagrees.
Kuo provides teaching that the crown data is scanned, stating “In one embodiment, a contralateral pair of a partially represented crown may be used to provide the generic tooth model. For example, as shown in FIG. 3C, tooth 314 has a contralateral pair--contralateral tooth 316--which has substantial bilateral symmetry (mirror image symmetry) to tooth 314. Thus, if a digital tooth image created from tooth 314 had a partially blocked or unexposed surface, then contralateral tooth 316 may be scanned and the digital data ‘mirrored’ to provide a substantially symmetric tooth to tooth 314 to be used as the generic tooth model in accordance with the present invention.” Kuo col. 5 lines 23-33.
PNG
media_image3.png
392
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Compact Prosecution
With respect to Claim Interpretation, the Examiner has provided some notes regarding “[BRI on the record]” throughout the Office Action, so that the record is clear about the scope of the claimed invention, and the record is also clear about the basis for the Examiner’s analyses. A clear record of the claim interpretation could expedite the examination by creating the condition to allow the examination to focus on Applicant’s inventive concept and its comparison with related prior art.
If there are disagreements, Applicant may present an alternative interpretation based on MPEP 2111. The Examiner will adopt Applicant’s interpretation on the record, if Applicant’s interpretation is reasonable and/or arguments are persuasive.
Applicant may amend claims relying on the Examiner’s claim interpretation provided on the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryakhovsky et al. (US 20200268495 A1) in view of Kuo et al. (US 8244390 B2), Ikeda (US 20090322868 A1), and Golay (US 20160124920 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ryakhovsky teaches A three-dimensional intraoral model processing device (“. . . providing of the virtual articulator comprising the virtual 3D model of upper jaw and dental arch and virtual 3D model of lower jaw and dental arch, . . ..” Ryakhovsky ¶ 16. “. . . said method being carried out with a computer.” Ryakhovsky Abstract ) comprising:
a display (Ryakhovsky figs. 4-7, showing user interactive graphical interfaces; however no explicit disclosure for display);
a memory storing one or more instructions; and a processor, by executing the one or more instructions (Ryakhovsky ¶ 125.), being configured to:
identify a missing tooth in scanned teeth of a three-dimensional intraoral model obtained by scanning teeth of a patient, wherein each of the scanned teeth comprises three-dimensional data representing a surface of a corresponding tooth of the patient, and the missing tooth corresponds to a tooth of which the three-dimensional data is entirely absent at a region where the missing tooth should normally be present (
With respect to “identify a missing tooth,” Ryakhovsky discloses, “FIG. 16. 23rd tooth is missing. Adjacent teeth with the lapse of time moved to each other hiding the defect.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 75.
PNG
media_image8.png
380
670
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to “scanned teeth,” Ryakhovsky discloses, “. . . characterized in that virtual models of teeth, lower jaw, elements of the temporo-mandibular joint are obtained on a basis of direct or indirect scanning.” Claim 4. For example, the 23rd tooth is missing as described, and the scanned data of 23rd tooth is entirely absent.
With respect to “three-dimensional intraoral model,” Ryakhovsky discloses, “. . . providing of the virtual articulator comprising the virtual 3D model of upper jaw and dental arch and virtual 3D model of lower jaw and dental arch, . . ..” Ryakhovsky ¶ 16.),
generate closed teeth by combining the three-dimensional data of each of the scanned teeth with a three-dimensional dental root of a template tooth of a corresponding tooth number (
[BRI on the record] With respect to “closed tooth,” Applicant states, “Applicant clarifies the closed teeth by defining that the closed teeth is generated by combining each of the scanned teeth with a dental root of a template tooth of a corresponding tooth number.” Remarks p. 11.
[Mapping Analysis]
Note that teeth models in Ryakhovsky fig. 6 are combinations of teeth and dental root of a template tooth of a corresponding tooth number.
With respect to “scanned teeth,” Ryakhovsky discloses, “. . . characterized in that virtual models of teeth, lower jaw, elements of the temporo-mandibular joint are obtained on a basis of direct or indirect scanning.” Claim 4.
The Examiner’s secondary reference Kuo provides consistent and stronger teaching about this feature.),
wherein a closed tooth corresponding to a planned prosthetic tooth for prosthetizing the missing tooth is generated, by using a missing tooth model corresponding to a tooth number of the missing tooth, and the closed tooth corresponding to the planned prosthetic tooth is placed at a location of the missing tooth, of which the three-dimensional data is absent (
“FIG. 18. Artificial 23rd tooth and implant to 23rd tooth root area are virtually installed.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 77.
The claimed “prosthetic tooth” includes the disclosed “Artificial 23rd tooth” as an example.
PNG
media_image9.png
462
668
media_image9.png
Greyscale
With respect to “planned,” Ryakhovsky discloses, “. . ., including mutually causal virtual planning of implantation taking into account the jaw virtual objects and position of the patient's virtual teeth in final position of the virtually planned orthodontic correction and/or final position of virtual artificial teeth.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 42.
Ryakhovsky discloses, “Mutual causality of the virtual planning of teeth position orthodontic correction and teeth form prosthetic correction originates from the fact that artificial teeth from the data bank for prosthetic correction are scaled taking into account sizes and forms of the patient's available virtual teeth, symmetrical tooth and/or proportionally to the available teeth in case of missing one or several teeth, aligned with the patient's virtual teeth taking into account the maximum possible alignment of surfaces, long axes of the artificial tooth and the patient's tooth, and binding of the artificial tooth to clinical or cervical lines of the patient's virtual tooth or to their projection if the tooth is missing.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 108.
Here, the “Artificial 23rd tooth” is a closed tooth that combines a scanned crown of a tooth with an artificial dental root of a template tooth corresponding to a tooth number of the missing tooth. The “Artificial 23rd tooth” is placed at a location of the missing tooth.
With respect to “scanned,” Ryakhovsky discloses, “. . . characterized in that virtual models of teeth, lower jaw, elements of the temporo-mandibular joint are obtained on a basis of direct or indirect scanning.” Claim 4.
For a missing tooth, there is no scanned data, which is mapped to “scanned tooth is absent.”),
move the closed teeth including the closed tooth corresponding to the planned prosthetic tooth to a final target position (
“FIG. 17. Teeth position is corrected with making a place for the artificial 23rd tooth.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 76.
PNG
media_image10.png
372
662
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Note that the teeth, neighboring the missing 23rd tooth, are moved to create the space for the tooth implant. The target position for the tooth implant is shown in fig. 17. In addition, the virtual tooth implant, mapped to the “generated planned prosthetic,” is moved to the planned position as shown in fig. 18.), and
display, on the display, a target intraoral model including the closed teeth moved to the final target position (“FIG. 18. Artificial 23rd tooth and implant to 23rd tooth root area are virtually installed.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 77; fig. 18).
Ryakhovsky does not explicitly disclose
a display; or
wherein the missing tooth model is generated combing three-dimensional data of a scanned crown of a tooth symmetrical to the missing tooth of the three-dimensional intraoral model with a three-dimensional dental root of a template tooth.
Kuo teaches:
a display (“For example, the present invention may employ various electronic control devices, visual display devices, input terminals and the like, which may carry out a variety of functions under the control of one or more control systems, microprocessors or other control devices.” Kuo col. 2 lines 41-50.);
wherein the missing tooth model is generated by combing three-dimensional data of a scanned crown of a tooth symmetrical to another tooth of the three-dimensional intraoral model with a three-dimensional dental root of a template tooth (
PNG
media_image6.png
250
294
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kuo provides teachings that are similar to Ikeda’s, stating “In one embodiment, a contralateral pair of a partially represented crown may be used to provide the generic tooth model. For example, as shown in FIG. 3C, tooth 314 has a contralateral pair--contralateral tooth 316--which has substantial bilateral symmetry (mirror image symmetry) to tooth 314. Thus, if a digital tooth image created from tooth 314 had a partially blocked or unexposed surface, then contralateral tooth 316 may be scanned and the digital data ‘mirrored’ to provide a substantially symmetric tooth to tooth 314 to be used as the generic tooth model in accordance with the present invention.” Kuo col. 5 lines 23-33.
PNG
media_image3.png
392
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kuo explains, “Typically, the generic typodont tooth surface geometry data represents the same type of tooth (e.g. molar, canine, bicuspid, incisor and the like) as the actual tooth image it is intended to model, and may also be the same numbered tooth as the actual patient tooth, using conventional tooth numbering and identification systems.” Kuo col. 4 lines 1-12.
Kuo further explains about scanned patient data, stating “For example, additional patient information regarding the actual crown of a patient may be obtained, such as from 3-D radiographic images 116 and the like. The scanned images may be used as the basis for morphing geometries to the scanned images to address variations in tooth shape between the generic tooth 104 and the partially represented actual tooth shape 108 so as to yield a tooth shape on complete tooth model 112 which more closely approximates the actual tooth.” Kuo col. 3 lines 57-67.
After Ryakhovsky, Ikeda, and Kuo are combined, there are two possible mappings for a dental root . . ., depending on the interpretation of “dental root.”
(a) The model root as shown in Kuo fig. 1B.
(b) The artificial root of the “Artificial 23rd tooth” as shown in Ryakhovsky fig. 18:
PNG
media_image9.png
462
668
media_image9.png
Greyscale
);
generate closed teeth by combining each of the scanned teeth with a dental root of a template tooth of a corresponding tooth number (Kuo fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuo’s display and closed tooth reconstruction method with Ryakhovsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to (a) communicate with a user through visual information on a display, and (2) create a complete tooth model when the tooth-root is generally unavailable, e.g., from scanning. Kuo teaches benefits of having the complete tooth models, stating “(40) After construction of the generic tooth digital model (308), the identifying of the gingival curve (310) may be conducted to identify the gum lines and/or root association. Such identification may include any conventional computational orthodontics methodology or process for identification of gingival curves, now known or hereinafter derived.”
Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo does not explicitly disclose
a planned prosthetic tooth is generated based on a tooth symmetrical to missing tooth; or
combing a scanned crown of a tooth with a dental root of a template tooth.
However, Ikeda teaches that a planned prosthetic tooth is generated based on a tooth symmetrical to missing tooth (
PNG
media_image11.png
314
406
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Ikeda teaches laterally inverting a symmetrical tooth for missing or defective tooth, stating “In the above embodiment, additionally, it is possible to replace the image of a certain tooth in the row-of-teeth image with a laterally inverted image of the tooth located at the position laterally symmetrical with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth and to display the inverted image.” Ikeda ¶ 110.
After Ryakhovsky is combined with Ikeda, a scanned healthy tooth, symmetrical to the missing tooth, may be laterally inverted to create the model for the planned implant. Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo already teaches three-dimensional intraoral model, and in light of the teaching from Ikeda, laterally symmetrical tooth model would be used to model a prosthetic tooth. Ryakhovsky already suggests the approach, stating “Mutual causality of the virtual planning of teeth position orthodontic correction and teeth form prosthetic correction originates from the fact that artificial teeth from the data bank for prosthetic correction are scaled taking into account sizes and forms of the patient's available virtual teeth, symmetrical tooth and/or proportionally to the available teeth in case of missing one or several teeth, . . ..”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikeda’s lateral inverting a healthy tooth to model a missing/defective tooth with Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the planned prosthetic tooth more visual pleasing.
Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo and Ikeda does not explicitly disclose
Golay teaches combing a scanned crown of a tooth with a dental root of a template tooth (
“A more complete representation of the tooth roots may be obtained using standardized, template 3D virtual tooth roots, applying the X-Ray data to the template tooth roots and modifying their shape accordingly, and them applying the modified template tooth root to the scan data of the crown to create a scaled, complete virtual tooth object including tooth roots.” Golay ¶ 36.
After the combination of Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo and Ikeda with Golay, a person with ordinary skills in the art would know that the modification of virtual tooth roots are made based on the availability of the corresponding X-Ray data.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Golay’s virtual root model with Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo and Ikeda. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to generate a more complete representation of a tooth model. The scanned data of tooth roots may not be available due to limitation of the scanning method. “A more complete representation of the tooth roots may be obtained using standardized, template 3D virtual tooth roots, applying the X-Ray data to the template tooth roots and modifying their shape accordingly, and them applying the modified template tooth root to the scan data of the crown to create a scaled, complete virtual tooth object including tooth roots.” Golay ¶ 36.
Regarding 2, Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay teach The three-dimensional intraoral model processing device of claim 1,
wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to
individualize the scanned teeth of the three-dimensional intraoral model (
[BRI on the record] With respect to “individualize,” the Examiner is reading the limitation to mean: identify an object as an individual, separate from neighboring objects. The interpretation is in light of the specification:
[0100] Individualizing the scanned teeth may mean obtaining information of each of the scanned teeth included in the three-dimensional intraoral model. Individualization may also be called segmentation. Information of each tooth may include information of a shape of each tooth, information of a position of each tooth, and information of the number of each tooth.
Published Spec. ¶ 100.
[Mapping Analyses]
Ryakhovsky figs. 16-18 show a tooth can be individually identified and moved to a new location), and
assign a tooth number to each of the individualized scanned teeth (
“FIG. 16. 23rd tooth is missing. Adjacent teeth with the lapse of time moved to each other hiding the defect.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 75.
“The multiband-image storing section 21 stores the images of the teeth acquired by the image-acquisition device 1 in the multiband image acquisition mode in association with the tooth numbers thereof. The tooth numbers are numbers indicating the positions of the respective teeth in the row of teeth.” Ikeda ¶ 82. ),
wherein a tooth number that is not assigned to a scanned tooth is identified as a tooth number of the missing tooth (
“In the above embodiment, additionally, if the tooth image corresponding to a particular tooth number is not present because, for example, the tooth is missing from the row of teeth, the image-generating section 29 may generate a row-of teeth image by placing an empty image in the region corresponding to the tooth number of the missing tooth.” Ikeda ¶ 114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikeda’s method to identify a missing tooth with Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to accurately and/or systematically identify a missing tooth.
Regarding Claim 3, Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay teach The three-dimensional intraoral model processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to
generate the planned prosthetic tooth for prosthetizing the missing tooth, according to a user input for selecting the tooth number of the missing tooth (
Ikeda teaches “user input for selecting the tooth number of the missing tooth,” stating “In the above embodiment, additionally, it is possible to replace the image of a certain tooth in the row-of-teeth image with a laterally inverted image of the tooth located at the position laterally symmetrical with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth and to display the inverted image. In this case, first, the user selects and inputs the tooth number of a certain tooth using the input unit 14.” Ikeda ¶ 110.
After Ryakhovsky is combined with Ikeda, user input may be used to identify or confirm the tooth number for a missing tooth, e.g., 23rd tooth as taught in Ryakhovsky figs. 16-18.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikeda’s input method with Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow the user to control and/or validate the accuracy of data.
Regarding Claim 4, Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay teach The three-dimensional intraoral model processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to
generate closed teeth by combining each of the scanned teeth with a dental root of a template tooth of a corresponding tooth number, wherein a closed tooth corresponding to the planned prosthetic tooth is generated by using a scanned tooth symmetrical to the missing tooth (
After Ryakhovsky, Ikeda, and Kuo are combined, there are two possible mappings for the closed tooth:
(a) The model root as shown in Kuo fig. 1B.
PNG
media_image3.png
392
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(b) The artificial root of the “Artificial 23rd tooth” as shown in Ryakhovsky fig. 18:
PNG
media_image9.png
462
668
media_image9.png
Greyscale
“FIG. 18. Artificial 23rd tooth and implant to 23rd tooth root area are virtually installed.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 77.
Ikeda teaches, after combination with Ryakhovsky, “using a scanned/imaged tooth symmetrical to the missing tooth,” stating “In the above embodiment, additionally, it is possible to replace the image of a certain tooth in the row-of-teeth image with a laterally inverted image of the tooth located at the position laterally symmetrical with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth and to display the inverted image.” Ikeda ¶ 110.
With respect to “symmetrically moving,” it corresponds operations that include “laterally invert[ing]” and moving to the symmetrical location “with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikeda’s lateral inverting a healthy tooth to model a missing/defective tooth with Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the planned prosthetic tooth more visual pleasing.
Regarding Claim 5, Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay teach The three-dimensional intraoral model processing device of claim 4, wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to
identify a position of a template tooth corresponding to a tooth number of the missing tooth, and generate the closed tooth corresponding to the planned prosthetic tooth by symmetrically moving and arranging a closed tooth symmetrical to the template tooth corresponding to the tooth number of the missing tooth to a position of the template tooth corresponding to the tooth number of the missing tooth (
Ikeda states, “In the above embodiment, additionally, it is possible to replace the image of a certain tooth in the row-of-teeth image with a laterally inverted image of the tooth located at the position laterally symmetrical with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth and to display the inverted image. In this case, first, the user selects and inputs the tooth number of a certain tooth using the input unit 14.” Ikeda ¶ 110.
With respect to “identify a position of a template tooth corresponding to a tooth number of the missing tooth,”
the “tooth number” may correspond to that selected or entered by the user for certain tooth, and an example could be the (“Artificial 23rd tooth”) as shown in figs. 16-18 of Ryakhovsky.
the “template tooth” corresponds to a model for a tooth implant, which will be located at the location of the missing tooth.
With respect to “a closed tooth symmetrical to the template tooth,”
the “closed tooth” is mapped to the healthy tooth symmetrical to the missing tooth “with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth.”
With respect to “symmetrically moving and arranging,” it corresponds operations that include “laterally invert[ing]” and moving to the symmetrical location “with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikeda’s lateral inverting a healthy tooth to model a missing/defective tooth with Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the planned prosthetic tooth more visual pleasing.
Regarding Claim 6, Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay teach The three-dimensional intraoral model processing device of claim 4, wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to
identify a position of a template tooth corresponding to a tooth number of the missing tooth, and generate the closed tooth corresponding to the planned prosthetic tooth by symmetrically moving the scanned tooth symmetrical to the missing tooth and combining the scanned tooth symmetrical to the missing tooth with a dental root of the template tooth corresponding to the tooth number of the missing tooth (
Ikeda states, “In the above embodiment, additionally, it is possible to replace the image of a certain tooth in the row-of-teeth image with a laterally inverted image of the tooth located at the position laterally symmetrical with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth and to display the inverted image. In this case, first, the user selects and inputs the tooth number of a certain tooth using the input unit 14.” Ikeda ¶ 110.
With respect to “identify a position of a template tooth corresponding to a tooth number of the missing tooth,”
the “tooth number” may correspond to that selected or entered by the user for certain tooth, and an example could be the (“Artificial 23rd tooth”) as shown in figs. 16-18 of Ryakhovsky.
the “template tooth” corresponds to a model for a tooth implant, which will be located at the location of the missing tooth.
With respect to “the scanned tooth symmetrical to the missing tooth,”
the “scanned tooth” is mapped to the scanned healthy tooth symmetrical to the missing tooth “with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth.”
With respect to “symmetrically moving,” it corresponds operations that include “laterally invert[ing]” and moving to the symmetrical location “with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth.”
After Ryakhovsky, Ikeda, and Kuo are combined, there are two possible mappings for the closed tooth:
(a) The model root as shown in Kuo fig. 1B.
PNG
media_image3.png
392
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(b) The artificial root of the “Artificial 23rd tooth” as shown in Ryakhovsky fig. 18:
PNG
media_image9.png
462
668
media_image9.png
Greyscale
“FIG. 18. Artificial 23rd tooth and implant to 23rd tooth root area are virtually installed.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 77.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikeda’s lateral inverting a healthy tooth to model a missing/defective tooth with Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the planned prosthetic tooth more visual pleasing.
Regarding Claim 7, Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay teach The three-dimensional intraoral model processing device of claim 4, wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to
obtain the scanned teeth moved to the final target position, by aligning the closed teeth with a customized curve generated based on at least one scanned teeth in the three-dimensional intraoral model (
Ryakhovsky figs. 16-18 show that teeth, including the implant, are moved and aligned with curves. In particular, Ryakhovsky states, “. . . virtual articulator additionally includes virtual 3D curves of clinical teeth cervical zones, which are defined as crossing of the patient's teeth and the gum and set bounds to the tooth visible part, and virtual 3D curves of teeth cervical lines, which are defined as crossing of the patient's teeth and the jaw bone and set bounds to the root part in the jaw bone.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 46.
With respect to “scanned teeth,” Ryakhovsky discloses, “. . . characterized in that virtual models of teeth, lower jaw, elements of the temporo-mandibular joint are obtained on a basis of direct or indirect scanning.” Claim 4.
Kuo explains, “In one embodiment, further adjustment of the complete tooth model 112 may be provided through detailed adjustment module 114. For example, additional patient information regarding the actual crown of a patient may be obtained, such as from 3-D radiographic images 116 and the like.” Kuo col. 3 lines 57-67.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuo’s closed tooth reconstruction method with Ryakhovsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to create a complete tooth model based on specific patient scanning data. The model could better serve a specific patient.
Regarding Claim 9, Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay teach The three-dimensional intraoral model processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to
output a user interface including one or more items selectable by a user, according to a user input for selecting a tooth number recognized as the missing tooth (“In this case, first, the user selects and inputs the tooth number of a certain tooth using the input unit 14.” Ikeda ¶ 110.), and
the one or more items include at least one of a first item selectable to recognize a scanned tooth corresponding to a tooth number recognized as the missing tooth among the scanned teeth of the three-dimensional intraoral model (
After Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo is combined with Ikeda, a scanned healthy tooth, symmetrical to the missing tooth, may be laterally inverted to create the model for the planned implant. See Claim 1 rejection for detailed analyses.
“In the above embodiment, additionally, it is possible to replace the image of a certain tooth in the row-of-teeth image with a laterally inverted image of the tooth located at the position laterally symmetrical with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth and to display the inverted image. In this case, first, the user selects and inputs the tooth number of a certain tooth using the input unit 14.” Ikeda ¶ 110.
A scanned tooth that is laterally symmetrical to a missing tooth, with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth, is recognized.), or
a second item selectable to provide a planned prosthetic tooth for prosthetizing the recognized missing tooth (
Ryakhovsky discloses, “Mutual causality of the virtual planning of teeth position orthodontic correction and teeth form prosthetic correction originates from the fact that artificial teeth from the data bank for prosthetic correction are scaled taking into account sizes and forms of the patient's available virtual teeth, symmetrical tooth and/or proportionally to the available teeth in case of missing one or several teeth, aligned with the patient's virtual teeth taking into account the maximum possible alignment of surfaces, long axes of the artificial tooth and the patient's tooth, and binding of the artificial tooth to clinical or cervical lines of the patient's virtual tooth or to their projection if the tooth is missing.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 108.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikeda’s lateral inverting a healthy tooth to model a missing/defective tooth with Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the planned prosthetic tooth more visual pleasing.
Regarding Claim 10, Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay teach The three-dimensional intraoral model processing device of claim 9, wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to
receive a user input designating a scanned tooth corresponding to the missing tooth (“In this case, first, the user selects and inputs the tooth number of a certain tooth using the input unit 14.” Ikeda ¶ 110.),
according to a user input for selecting the first item, assign a tooth number to the designated scanned tooth (
“In the above embodiment, additionally, it is possible to replace the image of a certain tooth in the row-of-teeth image with a laterally inverted image of the tooth located at the position laterally symmetrical with respect to the center (median) of the row of teeth and to display the inverted image. In this case, first, the user selects and inputs the tooth number of a certain tooth using the input unit 14.” Ikeda ¶ 110.
Here, the corresponding symmetrical healthy tooth will be laterally inverted and used to model for the missing tooth and assume the tooth number of the missing tooth; and therefore, “assign a tooth number to the designated scanned tooth.”), and
output the assigned tooth number (
“FIG. 18. Artificial 23rd tooth and implant to 23rd tooth root area are virtually installed.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 77; fig. 18.
PNG
media_image12.png
312
586
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Ryakhovsky fig. 24 teaches the supplemental information may be displayed on the left of a screen.
However, Ryakhovsky is unclear as to the number 23 of the “artificial 23rd tooth” will be displayed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ryakhovsky’s teaching on displaying supplemental information with Ryakhovsky’s teaching on identifying the tooth number of a missing tooth. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide more relevant information to a user to make more informed decisions.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikeda’s lateral inverting a healthy tooth to model a missing/defective tooth with Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the planned prosthetic tooth more visual pleasing.
Claims 11-16, 18-19 recite method claims, and is substantially similar to Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10. The same rejection analyses for Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10 are also applied to Claims 11-16, 18-19.
Note: some claims recite “the tooth number of the missing tooth” or “the missing tooth” in place of “the planned prosthetic tooth” it does not substantial alter the analyses, because the “the planned prosthetic tooth” is for “the missing tooth” and assumes “the tooth number of the missing tooth.”
Note: Claim 7 recites “based on at least one scanned teeth in the three-dimensional intraoral model.” Claim 16 recites “based on the scanned teeth.” The analyses are similar and provides quotes and citations support both limitations.
Claim 20 recites a CRM claim (Ryakhovsky ¶ 125), and is substantially similar to Claim 1. The same rejection analyses for Claim 1 are also applied to Claim 20.
Claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay as applied to Claims 4 and 13, further in view of Benker et al. (US 20140195205 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay teaches The three-dimensional intraoral model processing device of claim 4.
Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to control transparency of a color of the closed tooth generated in correspondence with the tooth number of the missing tooth, to be adjustably displayed.
Benker teaches wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to control transparency of a color of the closed tooth generated in correspondence with the tooth number of the missing tooth, to be adjustably displayed(
Ryakhovsky teaches coloring the teeth model, stating “providing the virtual articulator with virtual models of teeth, lower jaw bone, teeth roots, soft tissues painted in the color of real objects, including the models based on used 2D images. When demonstrating the modeling result, it is habitual and more natural for the patient to perceive virtual objects if they are painted the natural colors of real objects.” Ryakhovsky ¶ 90.
Benker discloses, “In accordance with the illustrated embodiment, a user may decide to view or make transparent various features such as images of teeth, nerves, guiding points, and bones, as well as some or all of the bone implant image 1302. It will be understood that any features may be available for selection on the transparency tool bar 1502 as desired. . . . In accordance with the illustrated embodiment, the transparency tool bar 1502 may include a transparency cursor 1504. For instance, sliding the transparency cursor 1504 in a first direction may render a selected feature more transparent in the 3-D window 408, and sliding the transparency cursor 1504 in a second direction opposite the first direction may render a selected feature less transparent in the 3-D window 408.” Benker ¶ 90.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Benker’s teaching of adjusting transparency level of an virtual object, with Ryakhovsky in view of Kuo, Ikeda, and Golay. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to distinguish the virtual object from other objects and/or to allow a user to see the neighboring structures occluded by the virtual object.
Claim 17 recites a method claim, and is substantially similar to Claim 8. The same rejection analysis for Claim 8 is also applied to Claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 20220296344 A1) teaches using AI to automate the design process for tooth implants.
VAN LIERDE et al. (US 20180075210 A1) teaches the key limitation “three-dimensional data of a scanned crown of a tooth symmetrical to the missing tooth of the three-dimensional intraoral model” of Claim 1. Van Lierde recites, “positioning, and adapting a crown from a library of crowns in the post-treatment 3D model of the tooth, or by mirroring the existing contra-lateral crown of the patient, or by using a statistical model for fitting a crown in between the neighboring teeth of the tooth to be restored;” Claim 1. However, Van Lierde does not disclose all of Claim 1.
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 ZHENGXI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-7509. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/ZHENGXI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights