DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The Response to Election/Restriction filed 08/12/2025 has been received and considered. Claims 2, 5-12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1, 3-4, 13-14, 16, and 18 are elected with traverse and currently pending.
Examiner Juan Carlos Ochoa is taking over the prosecution of this application.
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A: process for computer-automated design of veneers for a patient in which veneers are selected for the patient based on determining permissible teeth movements for the patient (as seen in Figure 1A).
Species B: process for computer-automated design of veneers for a patient based on determining whether permissible teeth movements can be made to achieve a look created by the veneers (as seen in Figure 1B).
Species C: process components for computer-automated smile design and/or orthodontics treatment planning (as seen in Figure 1C).
Species D: process for computer-automated selection of veneers for smile design without requiring movement of a patient's teeth (as seen in Figure 5).
Species E: process for automatically leveling teeth in a digital orthodontics model for auto-smile design (as seen in Figures 10A and 10B).
Species F: process for automatically snapping teeth to an arch form of a digital orthodontics model for auto-smile design (as seen in Figure 11).
Species G: process for automatically resolving IP contacts in a digital orthodontics model for auto-smile design (as seen in Figure 12).
Species H: a process for automatically socking teeth in a digital orthodontics model for auto-smile design (as seen in Figure 13).
The species are independent or distinct because they contain patentably distinct processes that require different method steps and produce different outcomes. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections -35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 13-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the digital orthodontics model" in line(s) 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are two different "a digital orthodontics model" anteceding this limitation. The recitation of “the digital orthodontics model” is unclear because it is uncertain which of the two was intended.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections -35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, 13-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
determining, by the computer system and based on the orthodontics rules, tooth movements along an arch form defined in the digital orthodontics model to achieve a desired teeth arrangement for the patient, wherein the tooth movements are made within the permissible degrees of movement for each tooth;
selecting, by the computer system and from the data store, a set of veneers from amongst a plurality of sets of veneers to achieve the desired teeth arrangement for the patient, the set of veneers being selected based at least in part on the determined tooth movements;
The limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”. These limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer components nothing claimed precludes these limitations from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim language encompasses a user simply determining tooth movements along an arch to achieve a desired teeth arrangement (judgments, opinions) and selecting veneers in his/her mind (observations, evaluations). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites mental processes.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong two: The claim recites the additional element "a computer system", it is interpreted as drawn to a generic computer.
As to the limitations “for performing an auto-setup of a smile design for a patient using a digital orthodontics model", they are no more than intended use.
As to the limitations “accessing, by a computer system, (i) a digital orthodontics model for a patient comprising upper teeth and lower teeth and (ii) an image of the patient, wherein the image comprises at least the patient's existing teeth; accessing, by the computer system and from a data store, orthodontics rules comprising permissible degrees of movement for each tooth”, these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. As to the limitations “overlaying, by the computer system, the digital orthodontics model with teeth of the selected set of veneers”, they are considered generic displaying. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added) "[0084] The computer system 102 can then overlay the digital model with the selected set of veneers in a desired teeth arrangement (block H, 164). For example, the selected set of veneers can be positioned over teeth in the model that have not yet been aligned or moved in order to achieve the desired teeth arrangement for the patient“. Data gathering and displaying have not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. They are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations "augmenting, by the computer system, the image of the patient's existing teeth with the digital orthodontics model having the teeth of the selected set of veneers, wherein the augmented image comprises a realistic visual depiction of the patient with the teeth of the selected set of veneers”, the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations “returning, by the computer system, at least the augmented image”, they are insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites the additional element "a computer system". It is recited at a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with computers. The use of computers to implement the abstract idea of a mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The computer implementation is described in the specification (underline emphasis added): ‘[0060] The computer system 102 can be any type of computing system, cloud-based computing system, computing device, and/or network of computer systems’.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations “for performing an auto-setup of a smile design for a patient using a digital orthodontics model" are no more than intended use, because no actual auto-setup of a smile design for a patient is ever performed in the body of the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim 1 recites data gathering and displaying, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations identified as just “apply it” merely invoke computers as a tool to perform an existing process. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added) "[0078] The computer system 102 can augment the image 148 of the patient based on the digital model to generate an augmented image 149 (block K, 140). The computer system 102 can perform image processing techniques to generate the augmented image 149 from the image 148“.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations identified as data outputting are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added) "[0079] The computer system 102 can return the augmented image 149, tooth movement data, and/or an orthodontics treatment plan as output in block L (142). Returning any of these outputs can include storing the output(s) in the data store".
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of additional elements improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2A, Prong One: Their claim limitations further the mental concepts of their independent claim. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Dependent claims, Step 2A Prong Two: The additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to the limitations “3… generating, by the computer system, an orthodontics treatment plan based on the determined tooth movements and the digital orthodontics model having the teeth of the selected set of veneers” and "4… generating and returning veneers information based on the digital orthodontics model having the teeth of the selected set of veneers, the veneers information including a type of the selected set of veneers and placement of the selected set of veneers in the patient's mouth", they are insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting.
As to the limitations "16… transmitting the augmented image to a user device for presentation in a graphical user interface (GUI) at the user device" and "18… transmitting, by the computer system to the user device, the other sets of veneers for presentation in the GUI at the user device, wherein the presented other sets of veneers are user-selectable", a GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
As to the limitations “18… receiving, by the computer system and from the user device, user input indicating a request for other sets of veneers from the plurality of sets of veneers, wherein the other sets of veneers do not include the selected set of veneers; selecting, by the computer system and from amongst the plurality of sets of veneers, the other sets of veneers”, these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. They are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. See Electric Power.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations identified as data outputting are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the GUI limitations have been found by the courts as not adding an inventive component/concept to claims to render them patentable.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claims recite data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of additional elements improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 13-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Imgrund et al., (Imgrund hereinafter), U.S. Pre–Grant publication 20100223034 (see IDS dated 12/15/2023), taken in view of Kuo et al., (Kuo hereinafter), U.S. Patent 11270033 (see IDS dated 06/16/2023).
As to claim 1, Imgrund discloses a method for performing an auto-setup of a smile design for a patient (see "[0015]… pre-set-up method performs automatically all global tasks such as guidance of the tooth roots, adjustment of the intercuspidation of the molars, space management in the frontal area and creation of an occlusion to an optimum") using a digital orthodontics model (see "[0120]… treatment planning software includes features to enable the orthodontist to manipulate the model 18 to plan treatment for the patient. The software moves the virtual teeth in accordance with the selections of the orthodontist. The software also allows the orthodontist to selectively place virtual brackets on the tooth models and design a customized archwire for the patient given the selected bracket positions. When the orthodontist has finished designing the orthodontic appliance for the patient, digital information regarding the patient, the malocclusion, and a desired treatment plan for the patient is sent"), the method comprising: accessing, by a computer system, (i) a digital orthodontics model for a patient comprising upper teeth and lower teeth and (ii) an image of the patient, wherein the image comprises at least the patient's existing teeth (see "[0118]… scanner system is used to acquire three-dimensional information of the dentition and associated anatomical structures of a patient… scanning node… generates a three-dimensional computer model 18 of the dentition that provides the orthodontist with a base of information for diagnosis, planning treatment, and monitoring care for the patient. The model 18 is displayed"); accessing, by the computer system and from a data store, orthodontics rules comprising permissible degrees of movement for each tooth (see "[0015]… tooth-root movements are confined to a necessary minimum as the pre-set-up meets various criteria towards an optimum"); determining, by the computer system and based on the orthodontics rules, tooth movements along an arch form defined in the digital orthodontics model to achieve a desired teeth arrangement for the patient, wherein the tooth movements are made within the permissible degrees of movement for each tooth (see "[0015]… underlying mathematical model and rules consider typical details like frontal overjet, overbite and molar classes. It supports the space management for virtual or real tooth extractions. Space can also be reserved for later implantations. The method allows selection of global arch form to account for specific characteristics of a single jaw. Arch forms from the database library may be used (e.g. straight wire technique)", "[0122]… simulation of tooth movement between current and target stages"); selecting, by the computer system and from the data store, (see "[0015]… quickly arriving at a virtual pre-set-up of the orthodontic treatment plan for a patient, based up on the user specified parameters; and thereafter enabling the user interactively arrive at a final, desired treatment set-up for the patient"); overlaying, by the computer system, the digital orthodontics model with teeth of (see "[0284] FIG. 22 demonstrates direct manipulating of the arch form spline by an user during treatment planning. The control points, illustrated as big points, can be selected on the screen and their position in the horizontal plain can be modified by using the mouse. The overlapping lines of teeth demonstrate the alignment on arch form spline for both forms of spline. FIG. 22 displays the original position of the teeth 360 superimposed on the modified position of the teeth 362. The control points of the arch form spline 364 can be used to manually modify the original spline form 366 to a new form 368"); augmenting, by the computer system, the image of the patient's existing teeth with the digital orthodontics model having the teeth of (see "[0015]… treatment planning process is divided into sub-operations that simulate the work-flow of an orthodontist or dental technician. The occlusion is formed independently from the global form of the jaw and vice versa; or the consequences from parameter changes like the AP position of the anterior teeth are be displayed instantaneously without modifying other constraints, such as the frontal overjet"); and returning, by the computer system, at least the augmented image (see "[0284] FIG. 22 demonstrates direct manipulating of the arch form spline by an user during treatment planning. The control points, illustrated as big points, can be selected on the screen and their position in the horizontal plain can be modified by using the mouse. The overlapping lines of teeth demonstrate the alignment on arch form spline for both forms of spline. FIG. 22 displays the original position of the teeth 360 superimposed on the modified position of the teeth 362. The control points of the arch form spline 364 can be used to manually modify the original spline form 366 to a new form 368").
Imgrund does not disclose, but Kuo discloses veneers (see "veneers" as "veneer library", "to create an actual restoration from the final restoration, a veneer template may be selected from a veneer library, which includes all types, shapes and sizes of veneers. The veneer template provides a reference geometry for the modeling of the actual restoration. The reference geometry of the veneer template may be a 3D digital model. Generally, the veneer template may be defined by various physical parameters, such as height, width, thickness and the like" in col. 19, lines 50-58).
Imgrund and Kuo are analogous art because they are related to designing dental appliances.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kuo with Imgrund, because Kuo points out that a "veneer-related quantification may be used as the reference for a veneering review, evaluation and analysis. The quantification may include, but is not limited to, volume, thickness, area and the like. The quantified results may be used to automatically or manually select the optimal start point and stop point of a veneering treatment" (see col. 17, lines 30-35), and as a result, Kuo reports that his "embodiments produce a healthy-looking smile with a reduced amount of tooth structure removed as compared to a traditional prosthodontic procedure with no orthodontia. The reduction in tooth structure removed reduces complications that can arise from over-reduction of teeth, such as sensitivity. It also helps to ensure that the reduction may be performed in an accurate, reproducible manner. Further, the options for future modifications of the patient's dentition are increased, since a greater proportion of the patient's original dentition remains after the procedure has been completed" (see col. 4, lines 31-40).
As to claim 3, Imgrund discloses generating, by the computer system, an orthodontics treatment plan based on the determined tooth movements and the digital orthodontics model having the teeth of (see "[0120]… treatment planning software includes features to enable the orthodontist to manipulate the model 18 to plan treatment for the patient. The software moves the virtual teeth in accordance with the selections of the orthodontist. The software also allows the orthodontist to selectively place virtual brackets on the tooth models and design a customized archwire for the patient given the selected bracket positions. When the orthodontist has finished designing the orthodontic appliance for the patient, digital information regarding the patient, the malocclusion, and a desired treatment plan for the patient is sent").
Kuo discloses veneers (see "veneers" as "veneer library", "to create an actual restoration from the final restoration, a veneer template may be selected from a veneer library, which includes all types, shapes and sizes of veneers. The veneer template provides a reference geometry for the modeling of the actual restoration. The reference geometry of the veneer template may be a 3D digital model. Generally, the veneer template may be defined by various physical parameters, such as height, width, thickness and the like" in col. 19, lines 50-58).
As to claim 4, Imgrund discloses generating and returning (see "[0120]… When the orthodontist has finished designing the orthodontic appliance for the patient, digital information regarding the patient, the malocclusion, and a desired treatment plan for the patient is sent"). Kuo discloses veneers (see "veneers" as "veneer library", "to create an actual restoration from the final restoration, a veneer template may be selected from a veneer library, which includes all types, shapes and sizes of veneers. The veneer template provides a reference geometry for the modeling of the actual restoration. The reference geometry of the veneer template may be a 3D digital model. Generally, the veneer template may be defined by various physical parameters, such as height, width, thickness and the like" in col. 19, lines 50-58).
As to claim 13, while Imgrund discloses wherein selecting, by the computer system and from the data store, (see "[0118]… scanner system is used to acquire three-dimensional information of the dentition and associated anatomical structures of a patient… scanning node… generates a three-dimensional computer model 18 of the dentition that provides the orthodontist with a base of information for diagnosis, planning treatment, and monitoring care for the patient. The model 18 is displayed"); Kuo discloses scoring each set of the plurality of sets of veneers based on at least one of (i) a likelihood that the set achieves the desired teeth arrangement and (ii) the set has a shape similar to the shape of the patient's existing teeth; and selecting the set of veneers from the plurality of sets of veneers having a highest score (see "veneers" as "veneer library", "to create an actual restoration from the final restoration, a veneer template may be selected from a veneer library, which includes all types, shapes and sizes of veneers. The veneer template provides a reference geometry for the modeling of the actual restoration. The reference geometry of the veneer template may be a 3D digital model. Generally, the veneer template may be defined by various physical parameters, such as height, width, thickness and the like" in col. 19, lines 50-58).
As to claim 14, Kuo discloses wherein selecting the set of veneers comprises selecting a subset of the plurality of sets of veneers, wherein each set of veneers in the subset has a score that exceeds a threshold score value (see "veneers" as "veneer library", "to create an actual restoration from the final restoration, a veneer template may be selected from a veneer library, which includes all types, shapes and sizes of veneers. The veneer template provides a reference geometry for the modeling of the actual restoration. The reference geometry of the veneer template may be a 3D digital model. Generally, the veneer template may be defined by various physical parameters, such as height, width, thickness and the like" in col. 19, lines 50-58).
As to claim 16, Imgrund discloses transmitting the augmented image to a user device for presentation in a graphical user interface (GUI) at the user device (see "[0120]… Each clinic 22 has a back office server work station 28 having its own user interface, including a monitor 30. The back office server 28 executes an orthodontic treatment planning software program… software moves the virtual teeth in accordance with the selections of the orthodontist. The software also allows the orthodontist to selectively place virtual brackets on the tooth models and design a customized archwire for the patient given the selected bracket positions. When the orthodontist has finished designing the orthodontic appliance for the patient, digital information regarding the patient, the malocclusion, and a desired treatment plan for the patient is sent").
As to claim 18, while Kuo discloses receiving, by the computer system and from the user device, user input indicating a request for other sets of veneers from the plurality of sets of veneers, wherein the other sets of veneers do not include the selected set of veneers; selecting, by the computer system and from amongst the plurality of sets of veneers, the other sets of veneers (see "veneers" as "veneer library", "to create an actual restoration from the final restoration, a veneer template may be selected from a veneer library, which includes all types, shapes and sizes of veneers. The veneer template provides a reference geometry for the modeling of the actual restoration. The reference geometry of the veneer template may be a 3D digital model. Generally, the veneer template may be defined by various physical parameters, such as height, width, thickness and the like… after a veneer template has been selected, the veneer template may be used to generate the actual veneer shape model (actual restoration) by deforming the veneer template to approximate the final restoration model. When the physical parameters of the veneer template are changed, the geometry of the actual restoration changes. The deformation may be achieved through the adjustment of the physical parameters, 3D morphing and the adjustment of the control points on the template surface" in col. 19, lines 50-67); and Imgrund discloses transmitting, by the computer system to the user device, the other sets of veneers for presentation in the GUI at the user device, wherein (see "[0120]… Each clinic 22 has a back office server work station 28 having its own user interface, including a monitor 30. The back office server 28 executes an orthodontic treatment planning software program… software moves the virtual teeth in accordance with the selections of the orthodontist. The software also allows the orthodontist to selectively place virtual brackets on the tooth models and design a customized archwire for the patient given the selected bracket positions. When the orthodontist has finished designing the orthodontic appliance for the patient, digital information regarding the patient, the malocclusion, and a desired treatment plan for the patient is sent").
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Election/Restrictions, Applicant affirms election with traverse to prosecute Species D.
Applicant argues, (see page 11, 2nd to last paragraph):
‘… without conceding that the identified species are independent and/or distinct, Applicant respectfully elects Species D, which Applicant believes corresponds to claims 1, 3-4, 13-14, 16, and 18, with traverse …’
Examiner's response: Because Applicant provided no arguments, the requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Henley S. Quadling, U.S. Pre–Grant publication 20060183082, discloses " [0002] The art of fabricating custom-fit prosthetics in the dental field is well-known. Prosthetics are replacements for tooth or bone structure. They include restorations, replacements, inlays, onlays, veneers, full and partial crowns, bridges, implants, posts, and the like… [0020] Another 3D surface, called a restoration cap model, is then selected. This selection may be made by the operator, by the system using automated techniques, by a combination of such techniques, or in any other convenient manner. As illustrated in FIG. 3, preferably a set or library of restoration cap models is stored or otherwise available to the operator or the system. FIG. 3 illustrates a set of three (3) cap models 302, 304 and 306, although, of course, the cap model library may have any number of models".
Fisker et al., U.S. Pre–Grant publication 20180098829 (see IDS dated 12/15/2023), discloses "[0268]… a veneering layer may be virtually designed on virtually cut backed or offsetted teeth".
Hsiao-Yang Liu, U.S. Pre–Grant publication 20220151733, discloses "[0038]… generate the candidate filling materials according to the 3D restoration file, the color information and the filling material database"
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 7:00 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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https: //patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https: //www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https: //www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016