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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final, first Office Action responsive to Applicant’s communication of 7/19/23, in which applicant filed the application. Claims 1-11 are pending in the instant application and have been rejected below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/19/23 and 2/20/26 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in MPEP 2106.03, the claim 1 is directed to a system which is a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One - MPEP 2106.04 - The claim 1 recites a series of mental processes (processes performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper)– detect a flash line in a model of a dental restoration, then add support structures in the model along the flash line as it recites:
arranging support structures (105) for an additive manufacturing process on a dental restoration (100), comprising the steps of:
detecting (S101) a flash line (103) in a … model (101) of the dental restoration (100); and adding (S102) … support structures (105) to the … model (101) for supporting the dental restoration (100) in the additive manufacturing process along the flash line (103).
At this time, the claim is viewed as a series of mental processes (processes performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper). Without further details, at this time, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Notably, the model is made “for” an additive manufacturing process and the additive process is not actively occurring in claim 1 at this time, nor is it involved in a meaningful way.
Step 2A, Prong Two - MPEP 2106.04 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At this time, additional elements include: a “digital” model; “digital” support structures.
A computer is not explicitly claimed or utilized, but it appears that is the intent with recitation to “digital.” Examiner recommends Applicant positively recite the computer, though that alone won’t overcome the rejection. A computer being used to perform “detect a flash line” and “adding digital structures” is considered an additional element at step 2a, prong two and step 2B as “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (MPEP 2106.05f).
Step 2B in MPEP 2106.05 - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, even if the claim is interpreted/amended to include a computer, it is considered MPEP 2106.05(f) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) as above in Step 2a, prong two. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim is not patent eligible. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 15, at Step One, is pursuant to step 1 in MPEP 2106.03, directed to an article of manufacture which is a statutory category. It is directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as claim 1; it is rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong two and step 2B. The computer program product, computer program code stored and executable by a processor are considered as “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (MPEP 2106.05f) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h) at step 2a, prong two and step 2B.
Claims 2 further narrows the abstract idea by having a person rotate the model to then detect the flash line, which is a further mental evaluation or one that is done in the same way with pen and paper.
Claim 3-4 further narrows the abstract idea by first determining in any way possible a “type of dental restoration”, which is akin to a mental evaluation, or a person choosing a type of dental restoration, then detecting where a flash line would be when they mentally evaluate the shape of the restoration. Claim 4 then has a mental evaluation of an orientation for the specific type of dental restoration.
Claim 5 further narrows the abstract idea by also being directed to a “mathematical relationship” of a “gradient method”. Claim 6 further narrows the abstract idea by having a steepest descent being determined, giving further specifics of the mathematics used.
Claim 7 further narrows the abstract idea by also being directed to a “mathematical relationship” by determining a local minim (117) in a layer, which in FIG. 5 of Applicant’s drawings, just shows a “lower” point. Claim 8 further narrows the abstract idea by repeating the calculation and determining the minima in multiple layers.
Claim 9 further narrows the abstract idea by also being directed to a “mathematical relationship” by using algorithm that is self-learning or “watershed” method” for determining a location of the flash line in a model. To any extent “self-learning” is referring to a computer executing operations, this is also considered as “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (MPEP 2106.05f) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h) at step 2a, prong two and step 2B.
Claim 10 further narrows the abstract idea by also being directed to a “mathematical relationship” by using a “mutual distance”, or equivalent distance, for where support structures are located relative to a mathematical slope of the flash line in the model.
Claim 11 further narrows the abstract idea by having mental evaluation of a person choosing to have structures at regular OR irregular intervals along the flash line in the model.
Claim 12 further narrows the abstract idea by also being directed to a “mathematical relationship” by using a mathematical distance to position the “support structures” in the model.
Claims 13-14 have additional elements of “produce” dental restoration in “additive manufacturing” or “stereolithography.” At step 2a, prong two and step 2B, these are considered as “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h) and insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g) – similar to “printing” a menu. Examiner notes there appears to be pathways in this application towards eligibility, but just reciting the names of the known processes with the current claims is not sufficient at this time. Chavez (US2020/0306017) par 3-4 is evidence “prior” approaches to additive manufacturing; Wighton (US 2014/0300017) is also evidence of the processes being known, par 45 “now know or hereafter devices additive fabrication technique”; and Singhal (cited in 103 rejection) – see page 1 Introduction “Stereolithography (SL) process is the most popular Rapid Prototyping process, which creates three-dimensional plastic objects directly from CAD data,” citing to Footnote 6 of Kruth, et al., Progress in additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping, Annals of CIRP, Vol. 47, No. 2, 1998, pp 525-540.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106.
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, 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 2010/0042241), in view of Chavez (US 2020/0306017).
Concerning claim 1, Inoue disclose:
A method for arranging support structures (105) for an additive manufacturing process on a dental restoration (100) comprising the steps of: (Inoue – see par 124 - In the form creation process in step S2, the creation unit 15 creates the structure data 22 and the relationship data based on the model 21 recorded in the model recording unit 13 and the measurement data. FIG. 3A is a diagram illustrating an example of a frame expressed by structure data 22 created by the correction unit 15. see par 210 - the structure is not limited to a bridge frame. For example, the structure may be a dental structure such as a corrective bracket or a corrective device, an inlay, an onlay, a crown, a bridge, a crown frame, a core material, the upper construction of an implant, an artificial tooth, various casts, …, and so on; directional/positioning jigs used when inserting implants; and so on.)
Inoue discloses manufacturing a structure, using a desired model by layering a power upon a modeling table in layers (see par 90) and using light irradiation to shape layers (See par 242).
Chavez discloses explicitly “additive manufacturing” (Chavez see par 57, 61 - print the dental appliance 106 with additive manufacturing).
Inoue and Chavez disclose:
detecting (S101) a flash line (103) in a digital model (101) of the dental restoration (100) (Inoue – see par 173 - The form of the space between the base plane and the structure changes depending on the orientation at which the frame, which is the structure expressed by the corrected structure data 29, is arranged relative to the base plane. If the form of the space between the base plane and the structure changes, the form of the support member that is disposed in that space also changes. Accordingly, it is preferable to determine the arrangement of the structure so that the amount of material used for the support member is at a minimum, or so that the modeling time for the support member and the structure is at a minimum; see par 179-181, FIG. 11 - The support member generation unit 7 generates a support member 34 (for a target structure 31) by arranging multiple column bodies or plate bodies having a predetermined cross-sectional form within the space expressed by the contour data 24).
Inoue discloses the support members 34 for a target structure 31 (e.g. FIG. 11), where the area between discloses a “flash line”. Chavez explicitly discloses the limitation of “detecting a flash line…” as well and shows it in FIGS. 4-5, 11: (see also Chavez see par 72 - In some embodiments, having supports only in contact with the removal line of the appliance 106 gives a clear, identifiable indication of where the separation is supposed to occur, provides improved tolerance as to how the supports are cleaned, and allows a mill or laser cutter to remove the supporting extensions. par 75 - As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 (and FIG. 11), the extensions 113 may be attached to the edges of the dental appliance 106 along a removal line 124. The removal line 124 may mark a transition from the support 112 to the dental appliance 106. see par 76 - the removal line 124 comprises a weakened portion 123 of the dental appliance precursor 100 extending over a region between the dental appliance 106 and the extensions 113. see par 83 - The removal line 124 is formed between the transition from one or more of the extensions 113 to the dental appliance 106); and
adding (S102) digital support structures (105) to the digital model (101) for supporting the dental restoration (100) in the additive manufacturing process along the flash line (103) (Inoue – see par 171 - FIG. 3B is a diagram illustrating an example of the support member expressed by support member data 25 created by the support member generation unit 7. The support member shown in FIG. 3B is a support member for supporting the frame shown in FIG. 3A upon a modeling table, described later, when that frame is formed by the layered modeling apparatus 100. In other words, a frame, which is the structure shown in FIG. 3A, is formed upon the support member shown in FIG. 3B;
see also Chavez par 94 - FIG. 11 illustrates an example of a completed dental appliance precursor 100 similar to the example of FIG. 10. In the example of FIG. 11, the precursor 100 is printed upward from the holder 114 with each successive layer being printed on top of the immediately preceding layer. The support 112 comprises a wall that extends from the holder 114 to the dental appliance 106. The wall comprises one or more extensions 113 between the holder 114 and the appliance 106. A removal line 124 is formed between the support 112 and the dental appliance 106 and may, in some embodiments, occur at a gingival line of the dental appliance 106).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
581
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both Inoue and Chavez are analogous art as they are directed to forming dental models to be manufactured (Inoue Abstract, par 16; and Chavez Abstract, par 57). Inoue discloses manufacturing a structure, using a desired model by layering a power upon a modeling table in layers (see par 90) and using light irradiation to shape layers (See par 242) and discloses the support members 34 for a target structure 31 (e.g. FIG. 11). Chavez improves upon Inoue by disclosing “additive manufacturing” (See par 57, 61) and having a removal line formed between a transition from extensions of a support structure 112 to the dental appliance (See par 75-76, 83). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include explicitly additive manufacturing and showing a removal line in the drawings to efficiently improve upon the support members for a target structure in Inoue.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layered modeling apparatus for dental CAD in Inoue, and further using “additive manufacturing” displaying a removal line between support structure and a dental appliance as disclosed in Chavez, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Concerning claim 15, Inoue and Chavez disclose:
A computer program product comprising computer program code which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, the machine-readable medium comprising computer instructions executable by a processor, which computer instructions cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (Inoue – see par 110 - The functions of the input unit 3, the output unit 4, the contour generation unit 5, the support member generation unit 7, the cross-section generation unit 9, and the creation unit 15 are realized by the CPU of the computer executing predetermined programs. A storage medium such as a hard disk or a RAM installed within the computer, a portable storage medium such as a flexible disk or a memory card, a storage medium;
see also Chavez par 190 - 192, in some embodiments one or more of these steps may represent or correspond to one or more software applications or programs that, when executed by a computing device, may cause the computing device to perform one or more tasks, such as the method step; par 192 computer-readable medium).
Concerning claim 2, Inoue and Chavez disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the digital model (101) is rotated to a predetermined orientation prior to detecting the flash line (103) (Inoue – see par 172 - FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating an example of the process for creating the support member data 25. First, the contour generation unit 5 loads the corrected structure data 29 recorded in the recording unit 11, and rotates the structure expressed by the corrected structure data 29 relative to the base plane to an orientation that enables easy modeling (step S11). The base plane is a plane that forms the base of the modeling layers that are layered in order to form the structure. In the processing performed by the modeling data creating system 1, the base plane can be taken as, for example, an xy plane. see par 175 - contour generation unit 5 calculates the volume of the space between the base plane and the structure for a variety of arrangements by, for example, rotating the structure. The contour generation unit 5 can select, from among the variety of arrangements, an arrangement in which, for example, the stated volume is minimum as the arrangement to be used when forming the structure;
see also Chavez – see par 89 - , the appliance is printed in an orientation that decreases the number of local minima and corresponding extensions coupled thereto. For example, the dental appliance 106 of FIG. 1 could be printed with the plurality of deposition layers inclined relative to an occlusal plane of the appliance. The angle of inclination can be within a range from about 45 degrees to about 90 degrees, and optionally within a range from about 50 degrees to about 85 degrees. )
Obvious to combine Inoue and Chavez for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
Concerning claim 3, Inoue and Chavez disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a type of dental restoration (100) is determined based on the digital model (101) prior to detecting the flash line (103) (Inoue –see par 172 - FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating an example of the process for creating the support member data 25. First, the contour generation unit 5 loads the corrected structure data 29 recorded in the recording unit 11, and rotates the structure expressed by the corrected structure data 29 relative to the base plane to an orientation that enables easy modeling (step S11). see par 173 - Accordingly, it is preferable to determine the arrangement of the structure so that the amount of material used for the support member is at a minimum, or so that the modeling time for the support member and the structure is at a minimum. It is preferable to determine the arrangement of the structure relative to the base plane so as to prioritize one of these factors for determining the arrangement or to balance them both;
see also Chavez -see par 60 - Although the embodiment of FIG. 1 illustrates a dental appliance in the form of an aligner, other types of dental appliances are suitable for use. For example, dental appliance 106 may comprise a retainer, a palatal expander, …, a nightguard, a functional appliance, or a 3D printed aligner thermoforming mold. see par 85 - An additive manufacturing process will typically print material onto existing cured material. Depending on the type of material and the printing device, each successive layer can typically extend laterally to the direction of deposition as far as the immediately preceding layer plus a small amount of overhang. Thus, a printer can be limited in the rate of increase in surface area size of successive layers. The increasing size of successive layers can define a corresponding angle in relation to the direction of fabrication (e.g. a direction of deposition), and the extension can be sized to couple to the wall of the appliance along removal line 124 along any suitable distance).
Obvious to combine Inoue and Chavez for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
Concerning claim 4, Inoue and Chavez disclose:
The method of claim 3, wherein a predetermined orientation is determined based on the type of dental restoration (100) (Chavez – see par 60 - Although the embodiment of FIG. 1 illustrates a dental appliance in the form of an aligner, other types of dental appliances are suitable for use. For example, dental appliance 106 may comprise a retainer, a palatal expander, a bracket for placing attachments on a plurality of teeth, an attachment for coupling to teeth, a nightguard, a functional appliance, or a 3D printed aligner thermoforming mold. See par 62 - FIG. 3 illustrates an appliance precursor 100, in accordance with some embodiments. The dental appliance precursor 100 can be printed in layers along a direction of deposition 117; See par 94 - The layers of deposition can extend to within about +/−15 degrees of parallel to the occlusal plane, for example. Although reference is made to an angle within about +/−15 degrees of parallel to the occlusal plane, any suitable angle can be used to decrease local minima, e.g. minimize local minima, as described herein. Each layer may be printed in a plane that is generally parallel to an occlusal plane of the dental appliance 106. The support 112 comprises a wall that extends from the holder 114 to the dental appliance 106. see par 98 - The 3D printer receives a digital data set corresponding to the shape and orientation of the appliance precursor in relation to the direction of deposition as described herein. While the digital data set can be configured in many ways, in some embodiments the digital data set defines one or more of voxels, contours, infills, hatching, or jump strategies, corresponding to the shape and orientation of the appliance in relation to the direction of deposition. see par 110 - In some embodiments, an overall angle of inclination of the appliance in relation to a build platform is determined as described herein, and the shape profile and structure of the support and walls determined in response to the angle of inclination. In some embodiments, the appliance is supported with the walls along an edge of the appliance as described herein.).
Obvious to combine Inoue and Chavez for the same reasons as in claim 1 above. In addition, Inoue discloses creating support member data and rotating the structure relative to a base plane, and the space between base plane and the structure results in having support members (See par 171-173). Chavez improves upon Inoue by having a variety of dental appliances with different shapes inclination and orientations for the appliance and the supports for different shapes (See par 60, 62, 94, 98, 110).
Concerning claim 7, Inoue and Chavez disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the flash line (103) is determined by detecting local minima (117) in a layer of the digital model (101) (Inoue – see par 127 - The creation unit 15 specifies, for example, the material of the frame by referring to the composition data 23, and calculates the minimum necessary frame thickness and so on for achieving the necessary strength from the specified frame material; see par 173 - . Accordingly, it is preferable to determine the arrangement of the structure so that the amount of material used for the support member is at a minimum, or so that the modeling time for the support member and the structure is at a minimum. It is preferable to determine the arrangement of the structure relative to the base plane so as to prioritize one of these factors for determining the arrangement or to balance them both;
see also Chavez see par 81, 83 - The removal line 124 extends to a first local minimum 128a and a second local minimum 128b. The extension 113 is coupled to the first portion 106a of appliance 106 at the first local minimum 128a and second portion 106c of the appliance 106 is coupled to the second local minimum 128b. see par 94 - Although reference is made to an angle within about +/−15 degrees of parallel to the occlusal plane, any suitable angle can be used to decrease local minima, e.g. minimize local minima, as described herein.).
Obvious to combine Inoue and Chavez for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
Concerning claim 8, Inoue and Chavez disclose:
The method of claim 7, wherein the minima (117) are determined in successive layers of the digital model (101) (Inoue – see par 172 - The base plane is a plane that forms the base of the modeling layers that are layered in order to form the structure. In the processing performed by the modeling data creating system 1, the base plane can be taken as, for example, an xy plane. Note that in the layered modeling apparatus 100, the base plane is, for example, a modeling table. see par 177 - The contour generation unit 5 determines the height of the structure 31 expressed by the corrected structure data 29 relative to the base plane to be a height suited for modeling ease (step S12). In order to reduce the amount of material used in the support member, it is preferable for the height of the structure 31 relative to the base plane to be as low as possible. However, if the structure is too low relative to the base plane, it is difficult to remove the structure from the support member, and thus it is preferable for the height to be of a degree that enables the easy removal of the structure. see par 190 - The stated measurement data is obtained by, for example, using the layered modeling apparatus to create a test piece having a constant form by distributing powder at a thickness of a single layer and ejecting a solution thereon, shaping the piece. see par 191 - the support member generation unit 7 can use this data to find the parts and the directions and sizes thereof that experience shrinkage, sagging, and so on, using a general computation method, such as the finite-element method.
see also Chavez – see par 81, FIG. 2 - The removal line 124 extends to a first local minimum 128a and a second local minimum 128b. see par 94 - The layers of deposition can extend to within about +/−15 degrees of parallel to the occlusal plane, for example. Although reference is made to an angle within about +/−15 degrees of parallel to the occlusal plane, any suitable angle can be used to decrease local minima, e.g. minimize local minima, as described herein. Each layer may be printed in a plane that is generally parallel to an occlusal plane of the dental appliance 106).
Obvious to combine Inoue and Chavez for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
Concerning claim 11, Inoue and Chavez disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the support structures (105) are arranged at regular or irregular intervals along the flash line (103) (Inoue – see par 181 - The support member generation unit 7 generates a support member 34 by arranging multiple column bodies or plate bodies having a predetermined cross-sectional form within the space expressed by the contour data 24. The support member 34 is formed, for example, of multiple column bodies or plate bodies arranged, at constant intervals, perpendicular to the xy plane. FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of a screen that displays column bodies 34a arranged at equal intervals perpendicular to the xy plane).
Obvious to combine Inoue and Chavez for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
Concerning claim 12, Inoue and Chavez disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the support structures (105) are arranged within a predetermined distance from the flash line (103) (Inoue – see par 181 - The support member generation unit 7 generates a support member 34 by arranging multiple column bodies or plate bodies having a predetermined cross-sectional form within the space expressed by the contour data 24. The support member 34 is formed, for example, of multiple column bodies or plate bodies arranged, at constant intervals, perpendicular to the xy plane. FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of a screen that displays column bodies 34a arranged at equal intervals perpendicular to the xy plane).
see also Chavez – see par 170-172 - At a step 2818, a plurality of weakened regions of the plurality of extension is defined at a plurality of locations where the plurality of extensions couple to the appliance. At a step 2820, a separation distance between the appliance and a holder is defined so as to define a gap between the appliance and the holder. At a step 2822, a plurality of separation distances between the plurality of extensions is defined so as to provide a plurality of gaps extending between the plurality of separation distances. The plurality of distances and the gaps may comprise any separation distances and gaps as disclosed herein.
Obvious to combine Inoue and Chavez for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
Concerning claim 13, Inoue and Chavez disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the dental restoration (100) with the support structures (105) is produced in an additive manufacturing process (Inoue – see par 242 - the layered modeling apparatus 100 manufactures a model by layering powder and then shaping a portion of each layer).
Chavez explicitly states “additive manufacturing”:
Chavez see par 57, 61 - print the dental appliance 106 with additive manufacturing; see par 62 - The plurality of extensions 113 extend from the holder 114 to the dental appliance 106, and support the appliance during the printing process. The holder 114 may be printed directly to a retaining surface of an additive manufacturing device such as a three-dimensional printer).
Obvious to combine Inoue and Chavez for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
Concerning claim 14, Inoue and Chavez disclose:
The method of claim 13, wherein the additive manufacturing process is a stereolithography process (Inoue – see par 242 - an optical modeling method, in which a light-shapeable resin is layered and portions of the layers are shaped through light irradiation, or a method in which sheet material is layered and parts thereof are cut away can also be used.).
Chavez explicitly states “stereolithography” (Chavez see par 57 - The presently disclosed methods, apparatus and appliances are well suited for direct fabrication with deposition manufacturing, such as 3D printing, fused deposition modeling, stereo lithography (SLA)).
It would be obvious to combine Inoue and Chavez for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Inoue (US 2010/0042241), in view of Chavez (US 2020/0306017), as applied to claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-15 above, and further in view of Singhal, “Optimum Part Deposition Orientation in Stereolithography,” 2005, Computer-Aided Design & Applications, Vol. 2, Nos. 1-4, pages 319-328.
Concerning claim 5, Inoue discloses having a support member 34, that is then removed from a structure 31 (e.g. broken off) in post-processing (See par 195, FIG. 5 – showing structure 31; and par 203, support member 34, FIG. 14), where the support member is at 45 degrees relative to the x-axis and where a contour generation unit 5 determines heigh of structure 31 to reduce amount of material for support member (See par 177). Chavez discloses that extensions 113 of support 112 can have a “gradient” thickness from the holder to the dental appliance.
Singhal discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the flash line (103) is determined by a gradient method (Singhal – see page 1, Introduction - The operator loads a three dimensional CAD (solid) model into the system. The translator tessellates three-dimensional CAD data into STL file by first order piecewise approximation of surfaces and an error namely facet deviation is introduced [12]. Support structure is designed to stabilize the part during building. see page 2, 2nd paragraph - The post-processing cost is dependent on support removal cost and
finishing cost. see page 6, 1st paragraph - Optimization process used in the present work is based on trust region method, which is a simple and powerful
concept. In the developed optimum part deposition orientation system minimization of average part surface roughness is performed by the standard optimization toolbox of MATLAB 6.5; see page 6, section 3.1-3.2 - trial step s is computed by minimizing q(s) (or approximately minimizing) over N. This is the trust-region subproblem and is mathematically given by… g is gradient of f (a vector of first derivatives) at the current point; section 3.2 – conjugate gradient algorithm, the step size is adjusted at each iteration).
Inoue, Chavez, and Singhal are analogous art as they are directed to forming models to be manufactured (Inoue Abstract, par 16; and Chavez Abstract, par 57; Singhal Abstract, Introduction). Inoue discloses having a support member 34, that is then removed from a structure 31 (e.g. broken off) in post-processing (See par 195, FIG. 5 – showing structure 31; and par 203, support member 34, FIG. 14), where the support member is at 45 degrees relative to the x-axis and where a contour generation unit 5 determines heigh of structure 31 to reduce amount of material for support member (See par 177). Chavez discloses that extensions 113 of support 112 can have a “gradient” thickness from the holder to the dental appliance. Singhal improves upon Inoue and Chavez by disclosing using a gradient method and steepest descent (page 6, 9) for optimization and orientation relative to support structures. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include a gradient method to efficiently improve upon the support members for a target structure in Inoue and the removal line relative to the support in Chavez.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layered modeling apparatus for dental CAD in Inoue, and further using “additive manufacturing” displaying a removal line between support structure and a dental appliance as disclosed in Chavez, and to further use a gradient method and steepest descent as disclosed in Singhal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Concerning claim 6, Inoue and Chavez and Singhal disclose:
The method of claim 5, wherein a steepest descent on a surface of the digital model (101) is determined based on a local gradient on a surface of the digital model (101) (Singhal – see page 6, section 3.2 - In the conjugate gradient algorithm, the step size is adjusted at each iteration. A search is made along the conjugate
gradient direction S to determine the step size s, which minimizes the performance function along that line; The philosophy behind this choice of S is to force global convergence (via the steepest descent direction or negative
curvature direction) and achieve fast local convergence; see page 9, section 6 - The generated surface roughness simulation gives the idea of surface roughness variation over the part’s surface well in advance before going for actual part fabrication. The work is in progress to enhance capabilities of developed system by including different modules for simultaneously minimizing the amount of support material and… maximizing accuracy of part.).
It would be obvious to combine Inoue, Chavez, and Singhal for the same reasons as claim 5 above.
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Inoue (US 2010/0042241), in view of Chavez (US 2020/0306017), as applied to claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-15 above, and further in view of Hodecker (EP 3056165).
Concerning claim 9, Inoue discloses arranging contour of a space with an “optimal” volume relative to support member data (See par 77). Chavez discloses reducing the number of extensions 113 of the supported to provide a more efficient removal of the support (See par 69-70) and “optimizing” to reduce material consumption (See par 139).
The method according to claim 1, wherein the flash line (103) is determined using a self-learning algorithm or a watershed method (Hodecker – See page 5, 7th paragraph – The coupling structure in this case forms the boundary layer between the transfer tray and the dental device. The second material of which the transfer shell and the coupling structure are made is chosen so that no permanent connection between the first material of the dental device and the second material of the coupling structure arises during the production. see page 6, 4th paragraph - The transfer shell preferably has support elements for supporting the transfer shell on a tooth surface. The support members could facilitate detachment of the transfer tray because the surface with which the transfer tray and teeth touch is minimized or at least reduced in size. The support members may also be configured to allow precise positioning of the transfer cup and the dental device coupled via the transfer cup coupling structure.
see page 11, 3rd paragraph – In addition, the modeling unit 315 can automatically make suggestions for changing the boundary conditions, for example, based on self-learning algorithms or based on comparisons with stored data of tooth and jaw structures).
Inoue, Chavez, and Hodecker are analogous art as they are directed to forming dental models to be manufactured (Inoue Abstract, par 16; and Chavez Abstract, par 57; Hodecker Abstract; page 6, 6th paragraph). Inoue discloses arranging contour of a space with an “optimal” volume relative to support member data (See par 77). Chavez discloses reducing the number of extensions 113 of the supported to provide a more efficient removal of the support (See par 69-70) and “optimizing” to reduce material consumption (See par 139). Hodecker improves upon Inoue and Chavez by disclosing using self-learning algorithms in formation of structure relative to support and boundary conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include the known technique of self-learning to efficiently improve upon the optimization in Inoue and the reduction of support material in Chavez.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layered modeling apparatus for dental CAD in Inoue, and further using “additive manufacturing” displaying a removal line between support structure and a dental appliance as disclosed in Chavez, and to further use the known technique of self-learning as disclosed in Hodecker since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Inoue (US 2010/0042241), in view of Chavez (US 2020/0306017), as applied to claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-15 above, and further in view of Wighton (US 2014/0300017).
Concerning claim 10, Inoue and Chavez disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a mutual distance of the support structures (105) along the flash line (103) (Inoue – see par 181 - The support member generation unit 7 generates a support member 34 by arranging multiple column bodies or plate bodies having a predetermined cross-sectional form within the space expressed by the contour data 24. The support member 34 is formed, for example, of multiple column bodies or plate bodies arranged, at constant intervals, perpendicular to the xy plane. FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of a screen that displays column bodies 34a arranged at equal intervals perpendicular to the xy plane.)…
Chavez discloses determining a suitable angle of inclination to decrease the number of removal locations or extensions 113 for separation from support 112 (See par 88, 96, 110).
Wighton discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a mutual distance of the support structures (105) along the flash line (103) “is determined based on a slope of the flash line (103)” (Wighton – see par 68 -Method 550 begins with step 554, in which an object is analyzed to determine which portions of the object may need support in order for those regions to be fabricated successfully. Any suitable technique or techniques for making such a determination may be used, including but not limited to calculations for determining supportedness as described herein. see par 69 - At Step 556, one or more candidate positions for support to attach to the object are identified using the information gathered during Step 554. Identification of support attachment locations may be performed in any suitable way, including by analyzing the slope of downward-facing (e.g., facing toward a build platform) surfaces, detecting local low points, and/or by performing a Boolean comparison of sequential layers to detect unsupported areas. see par 69 - At Step 556, one or more candidate positions for support to attach to the object are identified using the information gathered during Step 554. Identification of support attachment locations may be performed in any suitable way, including by analyzing the slope of downward-facing (e.g., facing toward a build platform) surfaces, detecting local low points, and/or by performing a Boolean comparison of sequential layers to detect unsupported areas.).
Inoue, Chavez, and Wighton are analogous art as they are directed to forming models to be manufactured that are supported (Inoue Abstract, par 16; and Chavez Abstract, par 57; Wighton Abstract). Inoue discloses having support members at constant intervals (See par 181). Chavez discloses determining a suitable angle of inclination to decrease the number of removal locations or extensions 113 for separation from support 112 (See par 88, 96, 110). Wighton improves upon Inoue and Chavez by disclosing analyzing the slope toward the build platform for determining positions for support (See par 69). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include the analyzing the slope toward the build platform for determining positions for support to efficiently improve upon the constant intervals of support members in Inoue and the consideration of angle of inclination in Chavez.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layered modeling apparatus for dental CAD in Inoue, and further using “additive manufacturing” displaying a removal line between support structure and a dental appliance as disclosed in Chavez, and to further analyze the slope toward the build platform for determining positions for support as disclosed in Wighton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
*Alternative rejection for claim 12 - Concerning claim 12, Wighton also discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the support structures (105) are arranged within a predetermined distance from the flash line (103) (Wighton – see par 71 - In Step 562, a second set of points are generated which are each a predefined distance from the object's surface, calculated using normal vectors identified in Step 560. In some embodiments, a point is calculated by determining an offset from a support point in the direction of the normal vector. The offset distance is preferably such that a sufficiently long support tip is generated to allow for the support to be easily broken away from the object, but not so much as to cause unwanted breaks to occur during the fabrication procedure. Such a distance may depend, at least in part, on the structural properties of the material used to fabricate the support. ).
Obvious to combine Inoue, Chavez, and Wighton for the same reasons as in claim 1 and 10 above. In addition, Inoue discloses arranging support bodies with spaces and at equal intervals (See par 181, FIG. 8). Chavez discloses having separation distances between extensions of the support (See par 170-172). Wighton improves upon Inoue and Chavez by disclosing having offset distance to allow support to easily be broken away from the object. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include allow support to easily be broken away from the object to efficiently improve upon the support members for a target structure in Inoue and the removal line relative to the support in Chavez.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Barth (US 2019/0263070) – directed to making 3-D objects by additive manufacturing using stereolithography and with a separating step (See par 66).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVAN R GOLDBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7949. The examiner can normally be reached 830AM - 430PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/IVAN R GOLDBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights