DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nikolskiy et al (US Pub 2022/0079716 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nikolskiy et al teaches a computer-implemented method of virtual dental restoration design automation (400 in Fig. 4; Paragraph 0041), comprising:
receiving a 3D virtual dental model of at least a portion of a patient's dentition (Fig. 12; Paragraph 0032-0034, 0095),
the 3D virtual dental model comprising at least one virtual preparation tooth (Fig. 2A-2B; Paragraph 0038, 0095),
the virtual preparation tooth comprising a digital representation of a physical preparation tooth prepared by a dentist (Fig. 2A-2B; Paragraph 0038, 0040);
performing an automated virtual restoration design using the 3D virtual dental model (Fig. 12; Paragraph 0095);
displaying virtually to the dentist one or more physical preparation tooth issues detected while performing the automated virtual restoration design (Fig. 12; Paragraph 0041, 0095); and
displaying virtually to the dentist a generated virtual restoration for one or more adjustments where no physical preparation tooth issues are detected while performing the automated virtual restoration design (See Claim 10 on Page 11; Fig. 12; Paragraph 0032-0034, 0038-0043, 0095).
Regarding Claim 2, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method wherein the automated virtual restoration design comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of decimation of the 3D virtual dental model, meshing, segmentation, determining an occlusal direction, determining a bite alignment, preparation die localization, determining a buccal direction, determining a margin for the at least one virtual preparation tooth, determining an insertion direction onto the virtual preparation tooth, determining cement space for the virtual preparation tooth, generating the virtual restoration, and pulling the virtual restoration to the margin (See Claim 10 on Page 11; Paragraph 0095).
Regarding Claim 3, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method wherein the one or more physical preparation tooth issues comprises one or more undercut regions (Fig. 2A-2B).
Regarding Claim 4, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method wherein the one or more physical preparation tooth issues comprises a lack of clearance (Fig. 2A-2B; Paragraph 0038).
Regarding Claim 5, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method wherein the one or more physical preparation tooth issues comprises a lack of insertion direction (Fig. 2A-2B; Paragraph 0038).
Regarding Claim 6, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method wherein the one or more physical preparation tooth issues comprises a margin line cannot be generated automatically (Paragraph 0139).
Regarding Claim 7, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method wherein displaying the one or more physical preparation tooth issues comprises highlighting one or more regions on the 3D virtual dental model needing reduction (Paragraph 0056).
Regarding Claim 8, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method further comprising illustrating an insertion direction to the dentist upon an automated design success (Paragraph 0059).
Regarding Claim 9, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method wherein one or more steps are performed during a single patient visit (Paragraph 0003, 0006).
Regarding Claim 10, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method wherein the patient is in the dental chair receiving dental treatment (Paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 11, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method further comprising upon detecting one or more issues during automated design, allowing a dentist to modify the physical preparation tooth (Paragraph 0055, 0095), rescan at least a portion of the patient's dentition comprising the modified physical preparation tooth to generate a modified 3D virtual dental model comprising a modified virtual preparation tooth, and uploading the modified 3D virtual dental model (See Claim 10 on Page 11; Paragraph 0041-0043, 0095).
Regarding Claim 12, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method wherein the generated virtual restoration is adjustable by the dentist (Paragraph 0095).
Regarding Claim 13, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method further comprising determining a quality of the one or more physical preparation teeth based on the automated design process (Paragraph 0046, 0095).
Regarding Claim 14, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method wherein the automated design error indicates a lower quality physical preparation tooth (Paragraph 0033-0038).
Regarding Claim 15, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method further comprising tracking a performance of the dentist based on the quality of one or more physical preparation teeth (Paragraph 0033-0038).
Regarding Claim 16, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method further comprising routing the 3D virtual restoration to a computer aided manufacturing ("CAM") process (Paragraph 0058), wherein the CAM process comprises performing a design machinability check for automated milling (Paragraph 0058, 0095).
Regarding Claim 17, Nikolskiy et al teaches the method further comprising milling the virtual restoration (Paragraph 0032, 0095).
Regarding Claim 18, the CRM Claim 18 is rejected for same reason as the method Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims (the CRM non-transitory computer readable storage medium is shown in Paragraph 0135).
Regarding Claim 19, the apparatus Claim 19 is rejected for same reason as the method Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Azernikov et al (US 20220218449 A1) teaches a computer-implemented method of recognizing dental information associated with a dental model of dentition includes training a deep neural network to map a plurality of training dental models representing at least a portion of each one of a plurality of patients' dentitions to a probability vector including probability of the at least a portion of the dentition belonging to each one of a set of multiple categories. The category of the at least a portion of the dentition represented by the training dental model corresponds to the highest probability in the probability vector. The method includes receiving a dental model representing at least a portion of a patient's dentition and recognizing dental information associated with the dental model by applying the trained deep neural network to determine a category of the at least a portion of the patient's dentition represented by the received dental model (See Paragraph 0056-0065).
Boerjes et al (US 20090298017 A1) teaches a scanning system for capturing highly detailed digital dental models. These models may be used within a dentist's office for a wide array of dental functions including quality control, restoration design, and fitting. These models may also, or instead, be transmitted to dental laboratories that may, alone or in collaboration with the originating dentist or other dental professionals, transform the digital model into a physical realization of a dental hardware item (See Figs. 4, 5; Paragraph 0193-0212).
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
VIJAY SHANKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights