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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The provisional application does not disclose “a physical characteristic” as causing an improper fit, the first digital dental appliance model including this physical characteristic (independent claims 1, 15 and 19), or modifying a size of this first physical characteristic (independent claims 15 and 19). The application only discloses that an ideal fit between models as hard to achieve (refer to Paragraph [0005]). And adjusting the dental model outline or an internal hole of the dental model (refer to Paragraph [0004]).
For the purpose of examination, the priority date for claims 1, and 3-20 is 10/23/2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The fourth and fifth paragraphs are duplicated as the sixth and seventh paragraphs.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukk et al. (US 20230325558 A1), herein referred to as Kukk, in view of Martin et al. (US 20210339475 A1), herein referred to as Martin.
Regarding claim 1, Kukk discloses a method of adjusting a dental appliance (Fig. 4) comprising:
using a manufacturing system and a first digital dental appliance model to manufacture a first dental appliance (refer to Paragraph [0084]; a first dentition model is used as a basis to manufacture the aligner);
determining if a first physical characteristic of [[a]] the first dental appliance is causing an improper fit of the first dental appliance with at least one (refer to Paragraphs [0083], [0088]; Examiner understands “physical characteristic” as any part or feature of the appliance; a dental professional determines that an aligner that has already been made does not fit the patient’s teeth properly, running a “Fit Issue Tool” for determining the discrepancies (physical characteristics) of the poorly fitting aligner to modify the treatment plan in response);
in response to a determination that the first physical characteristic is causing the improper fit of the first dental appliance with the at least one (refer to Paragraph [0083], [0088]), then correcting the first physical characteristic (refer to Paragraph [0088]; the treatment plan is modified in response to determining the root cause of the improper fit) by:
by one or more computer systems (refer to Paragraph [0100]; the methods are executed by a processor such as a computer), receiving [[a]] the first digital dental appliance model corresponding to the first dental appliance, the first digital dental appliance model including a first digital representation of the first physical characteristic (401+407; refer to Paragraphs [0041], [0084]; a first dentition model, used as a basis to manufacture the aligner is received for a comparison dentition model; the comparison dentition model indicates the discrepancies on the first dentition model causing a poor fit of the appliance); and
modifying the first digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraphs [0008], [0010], [0088]; the specific subset of features that cause a poor fit are modified to generate a modified treatment plan, where the poor fitting aligner of the treatment plan is represented by the first dentition model);
by one or more computer systems, storing the modified digital dental appliance model as a second digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraph [0013], [0030]; in order to fabricate or print a modified treatment plan model, the model has to be stored in a form of memory); and
using a manufacturing system and the modified treatment plan to manufacture the second digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraph [0013], [0030]; the modified treatment plan models are manufactured).
Kukk does not disclose by one or more computer systems, turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a first side of the first digital dental appliance model to modify a size of the first digital dental appliance model.
Martin discloses a method of dimensional compensation for 3D modeling in the analogous art of digital 3D modeling (refer to Paragraph [0013]). The method includes a step of turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a first side of the first digital model to modify a size of the first digital model by one or more computer systems (refer to Paragraphs [0023], [0024]; an offset factor specifies the number of three dimensional pixels to add or remove from a surface of the object in the direction of a given axis; the axis of addition or removal equates to a side of the digital model). This method allows the user to account for dimensional shrinkage or expansion prior to fabrication (refer to Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modifying the first digital dental appliance as taught by Kukk with the method of turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels as taught by Martin in order to allow the user to account for dimensional shrinkage or expansion prior to fabrication (refer to Paragraph [0022]).
Kukk is also silent to using an additive manufacturing system to manufacture the first dental appliance and using an additive manufacturing system and the second digital dental appliance model to manufacture a second dental appliance.
Martin further discloses using additive manufacturing to generate 3D objects (refer to Paragraph [0008]). Kukk also discloses representing the dentition models as digital 3D models (refer to Paragraph [0084]). Thus, Martin demonstrates additive manufacturing as a known method for fabricating 3D objects.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of fabrication as taught by Kukk with additive manufacturing as taught by Martin, as this is a known method of fabricating 3D objects.
Regarding claim 3, Kukk and Martin disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a first side of the first digital dental appliance model includes turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a most outer outline of the first digital dental appliance model (refer to the modification for claim 1 above, Kukk is modified by Martin to apply offset compensation to the first digital dental appliance model; Paragraph [0023] of Martin describes adding/removing pixels to the surface or outer outline of the model).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Kukk and Martin disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the turning off one or more pixels at the most outer outline of the first digital dental appliance model results in a reduction in a size of the first digital dental appliance model, and the turning on one or more pixels at the most outer outline of the first digital dental appliance model results in an increase in a size of the first digital dental appliance model (refer to the modification for claim 1 above, Kukk is modified by Martin to apply offset compensation to the first digital dental appliance model; Paragraph [0023] of Martin describes removing three-dimensional pixels from the surface, eroding the surface of the object or adding three-dimensional pixels to the surface, dilating the surface).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Kukk and Martin disclose the method(s) of claims 3 and 6; Kukk is silent to wherein the reduction or increase in the size of the first digital dental appliance model is distributed proportionally across an entirety of the digital dental appliance model.
Martin further discloses a global dimensional compensation factor, where the scaling factors in all three dimensions are equal, thus producing a proportional reduction or addition in size of the model (refer to Paragraphs [0023], [0026]). This allows for simple offsetting of the entire 3D object.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of modifying the first digital dental appliance model as taught by Kukk with proportional reduction or increase in size as taught by Martin in order to easily offset the entire 3D object.
Regarding claim 8, Kukk and Martin disclose the method of claim 1; Kukk discloses modifying a design feature within the first digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraphs [0008], [0088]; the user quickly modifies the subset of features causing a poor fit).
Kukk is silent to modifying the design feature by turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at an outline of a design feature within the first digital dental appliance model.
Martin further discloses adjusting only parts of the modeled object, turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at an outline of this part (refer to Paragraphs [0022]- [0023]; a dimensional compensation is applied to parts of the object, where the dimensional compensation/offset factor states how much to add or remove to or from the surface of this part of the object; the surface is equivalent to the outline). This allows the user to compensate for only the affected parts of the object (refer to Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of modifying the first digital dental appliance model as taught by Kukk with turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at an outline of a design feature as taught by Martin in order to compensate for only the affected parts of the object (refer to Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Kukk and Martin disclose the method of claim 1; Kukk discloses a first digital element of the first digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraph [0087]; Examiner understands a “digital element” as any element that affects the size of a part or the entirety of the digital appliance model, consistent with Paragraph [0049] of the specification; each dimension described by the tooth shape is a digital element; Kukk specifically discloses the width of the tooth as an example).
Kukk is silent to prior to turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a first side of the first digital dental appliance model to modify a size of the first digital dental appliance model, locking a first digital element of the first digital dental appliance model to create a first locked digital element; wherein the first locked digital element of the first digital dental appliance is unaffected by the turning off and/or turning on of the one or more pixels.
Martin further discloses locking a first digital element of the first digital model to create a first locked digital element, wherein the first locked digital element of the first digital dental model is unaffected by the turning off and/or turning on of the one or more pixels (refer to Paragraphs [0023]-[0024]; Examiner understands a “digital element” as any element that affects the size of a part or the entirety of the digital appliance model, consistent with Paragraph [0049] of the specification; the dimensional offset factor(s) of a part of the digital appliance model, equate to digital elements, as their values affect the enlarging or eroding of parts of the object model; an offset factor can be set to zero, indicating a dimension, or digital element, is locked at its current value, not to be eroded or enlarged). This allows for variable scaling for shrinkage and expansion (refer to Paragraph [0022]). Kukk further discloses when the original tooth dentition model tooth shape is wider than the patient’s actual teeth, the discrepancy is low risk, meaning it likely is not contributing to the improper fit of the aligner (refer to Paragraph [0087]); thus it would be beneficial to lock the tooth width dimension, while allowing for variable scaling of other dimensions of the tooth shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of modifying the first digital dental appliance model as taught by Kukk with locking a first digital element as taught by Martin for variable scaling for shrinkage and expansion (refer to Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Kukk and Martin disclose the method of claim 11; Kukk discloses wherein the first digital element includes a digital representation of a tooth recess or of a surgical guide hole (refer to Paragraphs [0065], [0084], [0087]; the tooth shape, including the width, of the first dentition model corresponds to the geometry of the tooth receiving cavity of the dental aligner and is thus a digital representation of a tooth recess).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Kukk and Martin disclose the method(s) of claims 4 and 6, wherein the reduction in the size of the first digital dental appliance model is not distributed proportionally across an entirety of the digital dental appliance model, and the increase in the size of the first digital dental appliance model is not distributed proportionally across an entirety of the digital dental appliance model (refer to the modification for claim 1 above, Kukk is modified by Martin to apply offset compensation to the first digital dental appliance model based on the offset factor for a given dimension; Paragraph [0023] of Martin describes adding/removing three-dimensional pixels disproportionally by assigning an offset factor to some dimensions, and a value of zero to others).
Regarding claim 15, Kukk discloses a method of adjusting a dental appliance (Fig. 4) comprising:
using a manufacturing system and a first digital dental appliance model to manufacture a first dental appliance (refer to Paragraph [0084]; a first dentition model is used as a basis to manufacture the aligner);
determining if a first physical characteristic of [[a]] the first dental appliance is causing an improper fit of the first dental appliance with at least one (refer to Paragraphs [0083], [0087]-[0088]; Examiner understands “physical characteristic” as any part or feature of the appliance; a dental professional determines that an aligner that has already been made does not fit the patient’s teeth properly, running a “Fit Issue Tool” for determining the discrepancies (physical characteristics) of the poorly fitting aligner to modify the treatment plan in response; one such discrepancy is the tooth shape);
in response to a determination that the first physical characteristic is causing the improper fit of the first dental appliance with the at least one (refer to Paragraph [0083], [0088]), then correcting the first physical characteristic (refer to Paragraphs [0087]-[0088]; the treatment plan is modified in response to determining the discrepancy causing the improper fit, such as a tooth shape discrepancy) by:
by one or more computer systems (refer to Paragraph [0100]; the methods are executed by a processor such as a computer), receiving a first digital dental appliance model corresponding to the first dental appliance, the first digital dental appliance model including a first digital representation of the first physical characteristic (401+407; refer to Paragraphs [0041], [0084], [0087], Fig. 7; a first dentition model, used as a basis to manufacture the aligner is received for a comparison dentition model; the comparison dentition model indicates the discrepancies on the first dentition model causing a poor fit of the appliance, such as tooth shape); and
modifying the first digital representation of the first physical characteristic within the first digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraphs [0008], [0010], [0087]-[0088]; the specific subset of features causing discrepancies that cause a poor fit, such as tooth shape, are modified to generate a modified treatment plan, where the poor fitting aligner is represented by the first dentition model);
by one or more computer systems, storing the modified digital dental appliance model as a second digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraph [0013], [0030]; in order to fabricate or print a modified treatment plan model, the model has to be stored in a form of memory); and
using a manufacturing system and the modified treatment plan to manufacture a second digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraph [0013], [0030]; the modified treatment plan models are manufactured).
Kukk does not disclose by one or more computer systems, turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a first side of the first digital representation of the first physical characteristic within the first digital dental appliance model to modify a size of the first digital representation of the first physical characteristic.
Martin discloses a method of dimensional compensation for 3D modeling in the analogous art of digital 3D modeling (refer to Paragraph [0013]). The method includes a step of by one or more computer systems of turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a first side of the first digital representation of the first physical characteristic within the first digital dental appliance model to modify a size of the first digital representation of the first physical characteristic (refer to Paragraphs [0022]-[0024]; a dimensional compensation is applied to parts (physical characteristic) of the object, where the dimensional compensation/offset factor states how much to add or remove to or from the surface of this part of the object; one of the orthogonal dimensions of addition or removal equates to a side of the digital model). This method allows the user to account for dimensional shrinkage or expansion of parts of the object prior to fabrication (refer to Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of modifying the first digital representation of the first physical characteristic within the first digital dental appliance model as taught by Kukk with the method of turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a first side to modify a size of the first digital representation of a part of the digital model as taught by Martin in order to allow the user to account for dimensional shrinkage or expansion of parts of the object prior to fabrication (refer to Paragraph [0022]).
Kukk is also silent to using an additive manufacturing system to manufacture the first dental appliance and using an additive manufacturing system and the second digital dental appliance model to manufacture a second dental appliance.
Martin further discloses using additive manufacturing to generate 3D objects (refer to Paragraph [0008]). Kukk also discloses representing the dentition models as digital 3D models (refer to Paragraph [0084]). Thus, Martin demonstrates additive manufacturing as a known method for fabricating 3D objects.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of fabrication as taught by Kukk with additive manufacturing as taught by Martin, as this is a known method of fabricating 3D objects.
Regarding claim 16, Kukk and Martin disclose the method of claim 15; Kukk further discloses wherein the first physical characteristic includes a tooth recess or a surgical guide hole (refer to Paragraphs [0065], [0084], [0087]; the tooth shape of the first dentition model corresponds to the geometry of the tooth receiving cavity of the dental aligner and is thus equivalent to a tooth recess).
Regarding claim 17, Kukk and Martin disclose the method of claim 1; Kukk further discloses wherein the first physical characteristic of the first dental appliance is determined to cause the improper fit of the first dental appliance with the at least one (refer to Paragraph [0083]; the patient or dental professional finds that the already made aligner does not fit properly as the aligner is too difficult to place on/remove from the teeth, or causing patient discomfort).
Regarding claim 18, Kukk and Martin disclose the method of claim 15; Kukk further discloses wherein the first physical characteristic of the first dental appliance is determined to cause the improper fit of the first dental appliance with the at least one (refer to Paragraph [0083]; the patient or dental professional finds that the already made aligner does not fit properly as the aligner is too difficult to place on/remove from the teeth, or causing patient discomfort).
Regarding claim 19, Kukk discloses a method of adjusting a dental appliance (Fig. 4) comprising:
using a manufacturing system and a first digital dental appliance model to manufacture a first dental appliance (refer to Paragraph [0084]; a first dentition model is used as a basis to manufacture the aligner);
determining, by at least physically applying [[a]] the first dental appliance to at least one (refer to Paragraph [0083]; the patient or dental professional finds that the already made aligner does not fit properly as the aligner is too difficult to place on/remove from the teeth, or causing patient discomfort), if a first physical characteristic of the first dental appliance is causing an improper fit of the first dental appliance with the patient and therefore requires correction (refer to Paragraphs [0083], [0087]-[0088]; Examiner understands “physical characteristic” as any part or feature of the appliance; a dental professional determines that an aligner that has already been made does not fit the patient’s teeth properly, running a “Fit Issue Tool” for determining the discrepancies (physical characteristics) of the poorly fitting aligner to modify the treatment plan in response; one such discrepancy is the tooth shape);
in response to a determination that the first physical characteristic is causing the improper fit of the first dental appliance with the patient and therefore requires correction(refer to Paragraph [0083], [0088]), then correcting the first physical characteristic (refer to Paragraphs [0087]-[0088]; the treatment plan is modified in response to determining the high risk discrepancy causing the improper fit, such as a tooth shape discrepancy) by:
by one or more computer systems (refer to Paragraph [0100]; the methods are executed by a processor such as a computer), receiving [[a]] the first digital dental appliance model corresponding to the first dental appliance, the first digital dental appliance model including a first digital representation of the first physical characteristic (401+407; refer to Paragraphs [0041], [0084]; a first dentition model, used as a basis to manufacture the aligner is received for a comparison dentition model; the comparison dentition model indicates the discrepancies on the first dentition model causing a poor fit of the appliance); and
modifying the first digital representation of the first physical characteristic within the first digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraphs [0008], [0010], [0087]-[0088]; the specific subset of features causing discrepancies that cause a poor fit, such as tooth shape, are modified to generate a modified treatment plan, where the poor fitting aligner is represented by the first dentition model);
by one or more computer systems, storing the modified digital dental appliance model as a second digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraph [0013], [0030]; in order to fabricate or print a modified treatment plan model, the model has to be stored in a form of memory); and
using a manufacturing system and the modified treatment plan to manufacture a second digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraph [0013], [0030]; the modified treatment plan models are manufactured).
Kukk does not disclose by one or more computer systems, turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a first side of the first digital representation of the first physical characteristic within the first digital dental appliance model to modify a size of the first digital representation of the first physical characteristic.
Martin discloses a method of dimensional compensation for 3D modeling in the analogous art of digital 3D modeling (refer to Paragraph [0013]). The method includes a step of by one or more computer systems of turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a first side of the first digital representation of the first physical characteristic within the first digital dental appliance model to modify a size of the first digital representation of the first physical characteristic (refer to Paragraphs [0022]-[0024]; a dimensional compensation is applied to parts (physical characteristic) of the object, where the dimensional compensation/offset factor states how much to add or remove to or from the surface of this part of the object; one of the orthogonal dimensions of addition or removal equates to a side of the digital model). This method allows the user to account for dimensional shrinkage or expansion of parts of the object prior to fabrication (refer to Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of modifying the first digital representation of the first physical characteristic within the first digital dental appliance model as taught by Kukk with the method of turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a first side to modify a size of the first digital representation of a part of the digital model as taught by Martin in order to allow the user to account for dimensional shrinkage or expansion of parts of the object prior to fabrication (refer to Paragraph [0022]).
Kukk is also silent to using an additive manufacturing system to manufacture the first dental appliance and using an additive manufacturing system and the second digital dental appliance model to manufacture a second dental appliance.
Martin further discloses using additive manufacturing to generate 3D objects (refer to Paragraph [0008]). Kukk also discloses representing the dentition models as digital 3D models (refer to Paragraph [0084]). Thus, Martin demonstrates additive manufacturing as a known method for fabricating 3D objects.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of fabrication as taught by Kukk with additive manufacturing as taught by Martin, as this is a known method of fabricating 3D objects.
Regarding claim 20, Kukk and Martin disclose the method of claim 19; Kukk further discloses wherein the first physical characteristic includes a tooth recess or a surgical guide hole (refer to Paragraphs [0065], [0084], [0087]; the tooth shape of the first dentition model corresponds to the geometry of the tooth receiving cavity of the dental aligner and is thus equivalent to a tooth recess).
Regarding claim 21, Kukk and Martin disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first physical characteristic includes at least one of a size of the first dental appliance, a width of the first dental appliance (refer to Paragraph [0087]; an example of discrepancy is associated with the current tooth dentition model being wider or less wide than the original tooth dentition model; thus, the first dental appliance which is based on the original dentition model is either too wide or not wide enough), a length of the first dental appliance, and a size of a surgical guide hole of the first dental appliance, and wherein the improper fit includes the first dental appliance being too tight or too loose when applied to the at least one tooth of the patient (refer to Paragraphs [0010], [0083]; an aligner is determined to not fit well by being too loose or difficulty with positioning onto the patient’s teeth (too tight)).
Claim(s) 1, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnitzspan et al. (US 20160317260 A1), herein referred to as Schnitzspan, in view of Thompson et al. (US 20170215999 A1), herein referred to as Thompson.
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a method of adjusting a dental appliance (Fig. 1) (refer to Paragraphs [0031], [0035]; given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Applicant’s specification, Examiner understands a dental appliance as including any orthodontic or restorative device, including dentures; new dentures are created using an existing denture, thereby adjusting the model of the existing denture) comprising:
using an additive manufacturing system and a first digital dental appliance model to manufacture a first dental appliance (refer to Paragraphs [0031], [0038]; a digital three dimensional model (40) is created from the inside and outside of the existing denture (20) is created to directly fabricate a try-in denture per ComputerLanguage.com, direct manufacturing is an equivalent term to additive manufacturing/3D printing);
determining if a first physical characteristic of a first dental appliance is causing an improper fit of the first dental appliance with a patient and therefore requires correction (refer to Paragraphs [0035], [0038]; the try-in denture, fabricated based on the modeled denture base, is tried onto the patient to determine if the fit is correct; the fit can be poor due to the wear of the denture base);
in response to a determination that the first physical characteristic is causing the improper fit of the first dental appliance with the patient and therefore requires correction, then correcting the first physical characteristic (refer to Paragraph [0035]) by:
by one or more computer systems, receiving [[a]] the first digital dental appliance model corresponding to the first dental appliance, the first digital dental appliance model including a first digital representation of the first physical characteristic (refer to Paragraph [0031], Figs. 4-5; a digital three dimensional model (40) created from the inside and outside of the existing denture (20) is created; as the entire denture (20) is modeled, the wear of the denture base and/or teeth is represented; as the model is digital, the method is performed by a computer) and
by one or more computer systems, turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a first side of the first digital dental appliance model to modify a size of the first digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraph [0032], annotated Fig. 7 below; the pixels depicting the teeth are digitally subtracted or turned off on the occlusal side of the denture model (40), reducing/modifying the size of the denture model (40); the pixels depicting the teeth are turned on or digitally added as an offset, adding a thickness to the teeth on the occlusal side of the denture model (40));
by one or more computer systems, storing the modified digital dental appliance model as a second digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraph [0038], Fig. 1; fabrication of the modified denture base from the digitized model (40) requires digitally storing the model prior to fabrication); and
using [[an]] the additive manufacturing system and the second digital dental appliance model to manufacture a second dental appliance (refer to Paragraph [0038], Fig. 1; the denture base is directly fabricated from the digitized model (40) with the teeth subtracted; per ComputerLanguage.com, direct manufacturing is an equivalent term to additive manufacturing/3D printing).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thompson discloses where the dental appliance causes an improper fit of with the patient’s anatomy, but does not explicitly disclose causing an improper fit of the first dental appliance with at least one
Schnitzspan discloses a method of adjusting a dental appliance in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0011], Fig. 1B; given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Applicant’s specification, Examiner understands a dental appliance as including any orthodontic or restorative device, including dentures). This method is disclosed as being used for partial dentures, where partial dentures are for patients missing only some of their teeth (refer to Paragraph [0004]). By definition a partial denture is a prosthetic replacement attached to the abutment natural teeth (ADA.org); thus, in modifying Thompson to be applicable to partial dentures, in the same fashion as Schnitzspan, an improper fit with the patient’s anatomy includes an improper fit with a tooth of a patient, and further extends the applicability of Thompson’s method to include a greater variety of denture patients.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of adjusting a dental appliance as taught by Thompson to be used with partial dentures as taught by Schnitzspan, thereby determining if a first physical characteristic of a first dental appliance causing an improper fit with at least one tooth of a patient, as Schnitzspan teaches the applicability of the adjustment method to partial dentures (refer to Paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claims 8-9, Thomas and Schnitzspan disclose the method of claim 1; Thompson further discloses wherein the turning off and/or turning on one or more pixels at a first side of the first digital dental appliance model includes turning off on one or more pixels at an outline of a design feature (denture pockets) within the first digital dental appliance model, increasing a size of the design feature (denture pockets) within the first digital dental appliance model (refer to Paragraph [0032]; turning on pixels, or adding an offset to the teeth creates larger pockets in the denture base; as the pockets are spaces where there is no denture base material, increasing the outer margins of the pockets is equivalent to turning off the denture base pixels).
Regarding claim 10, Thomas and Schnitzspan disclose the method of claim 8; Thompson does not explicitly teach wherein the turning on one or more pixels at the outline of the design feature within the first digital dental appliance model decreases a size of the design feature within the first digital dental appliance model.
Schnitzspan further discloses the turning on one or more pixels at the outline of the design feature (203) within the first digital dental appliance model (200) decreases a size of the design feature (203) within the first digital dental appliance model (200) (116; refer to Paragraph [0036], annotated Fig. 4 below; the outer margins of the retention holes (203) can be decreased; decreasing the outer margin means turning on the dental appliance pixels, creating a smaller retention hole). The dental feature (203) is sized relative to the denture teeth (refer to Paragraph [0033]), the same function of the dental feature (denture pockets) of Thompson’s dental appliance (40) (refer to Paragraph [0032]). Thus, the method of turning on one or more pixels at the outline of the design feature (203) to decrease its size is a known technique for appropriately sizing tooth recesses.
PNG
media_image2.png
212
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modifying the size of the dental feature as taught by Thompson with the method of turning on one or more pixels at the outline of the design feature (203) to decrease its size as taught by Schnitzspan, as Schnitzspan demonstrates this step as a known technique for appropriately sizing tooth recesses (refer to Paragraph [0032]).
Response to Arguments
The outstanding objection of claims 3-14 and 16-20 are withdrawn in view of the newly submitted claim amendment.
The outstanding specification objection of, “natural tooth”, is withdrawn in view of the newly submitted claim amendment.
The outstanding specification objection of the use of “physical characteristic” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s explanation of the term being a generic terminology for the described physical attributes. Of note – as the term, “physical characteristic”, is not used or explicitly defined in the specification, Examiner is giving this term the broadest reasonable interpretation and understands “physical characteristic” as any part or feature of the appliance.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 103, Kukk Arguments
In response to the argument that Kukk does not teach the limitations of claim 1, Examiner points to the above rejection, further detailing the responses for each individual limitation challenged below:
In response to the argument that a dentition model is not a dental appliance model, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a dental appliance model”, Kukk explicitly states that the treatment plan, which is a series of dental appliances, is represented by one or more digital three-dimensional models of the patient’s dentition (refer to Paragraphs [0063]-[0064]), with the teeth receiving cavities having a geometry corresponding to the tooth arrangement for that stage of the treatment plan (refer to Paragraph [0065]).
In response to the argument that Kukk does not disclose the modification step, Examiner points to Paragraphs [0007], [0008], [0088], which explicitly disclose modifying the treatment plan and specific subsets of features that cause the poor fit.
In response to the argument that Kukk does not disclose a physical feature as causing the poor fit, Examiner points to Paragraphs [0008], [0087] which describe the appliance fitting poorly due to mis-matched tooth shape/position (meaning the cavities of the appliance do not match the patient’s tooth shape/position).
In response to the argument that the aligner does not fit because the patient’s teeth have changed, if the patient’s teeth have changed, and the aligner no longer fits due to a mismatched cavity, it is a physical characteristic of the aligner that requires correction to better match the teeth. Whether the patient’s teeth have changed or not does not change Kukk anticipating Applicant’s method.
35 U.S.C. 103, Martin + Kukk Arguments
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, Martin is not relied upon for the teaching of making a determination and correcting in response to the determination.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Kukk and Martin does not yield the claimed invention, the test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
35 U.S.C. 103, Thompson Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that Thompson does not disclose amended claim 1, Examiner points to the above rejection, in which an iterative try-on process using digital data from the original denture model is disclosed (refer to Paragraph [0038]).
Of note – Applicant describes the order of the process of Thompson as being inverted; however, Applicant’s claimed method does not require a specific sequence of the claimed steps.
In response to the argument that Thompson’s direct fabrication is not equivalent to the known term of additive manufacturing, Examiner points to the referenced definition by Computerlanguage.com and has further included another definition by NIST as part of the NPL references. Further, Paragraph [0033] is disclosing one preferred embodiment (machining), not all of the fabrication options.
In response to the argument that Thompson does not perform the pixel offsetting in response to a determination of an improper fit, Examiner points to Paragraph [0035]. The entire process is based on an improperly fitting denture, including the base and teeth.
35 U.S.C. 103, Thompson + Schnitzspan Arguments
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, Schnitzspan is not relied upon for the teaching of making a determination.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Thompson and Schnitzspan is “stitched together” and does not yield the claimed invention, the test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Examiner recommends Applicant incorporate those features from the specification into the claim language which differentiate the invention from the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-7:00 EST.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights