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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/28/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jordan (US 20080057466 A1).
Claim(s) 9, 11-16, 18-19, 21-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US 20080057466 A1) in view of Wu (US 20230048005 A1).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US 20080057466 A1) in view of Kopelman (US 20180168781 A1).
Claim(s) 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US 20080057466 A1) in view of Wu (US 20230048005 A1) and in further view of Kopelman (US 20180168781 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jordan (US 20080057466 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jordan discloses An intraoral scanning system, comprising: (¶162 “the images may be…intraoral photographs,”)
an intraoral scanner to generate intraoral scan data of a bite of a patient; (¶50 “measured digital data refers to digital data captured directly from a patient's anatomy in a digital form (e.g., teeth, gums, condyle geometry, etc.) by any method (e.g., stereographs, digitization probes, optical scanning and detection devices, etc.)”)
a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to: (¶21 “The present invention in its various embodiments is highly advantageous for the dental practitioner, because the articulation can be carried out using a computing system”)
receive the intraoral scan data of the bite of the patient during scanning of the bite of the patient, wherein each datum of the intraoral scan data shows a portion of a lower dental arch and a portion of an upper dental arch of the patient; (¶22 “a first set of digital data corresponding to an upper arch image of at least a portion of an upper dental arch of a patient, providing a second set of digital data corresponding to a lower arch image of at least a portion of a lower dental arch of the patient,”)
determine a difference in a relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch between at least a first datum of the intraoral scan data and a second datum of the intraoral scan data; and (¶22 “Bite alignment data representative of the spatial relationship between the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch of the patient is further provided”)
perform a remedial action responsive to determining that the difference in the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch exceeds a difference threshold. (¶149 “The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween below a certain threshold is then generated, i.e., N1.” ¶150 “The upper dental arch image is then moved to the right and to the left of the first contact point in pixel resolution, preferably one pixel. The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween that is below the threshold is then generated for the positions of the upper dental image at the right and left of the first contact point, i.e., N2 and N3. N2 and N3 are compared to N1 to determine if the position of the upper dental arch corresponding to N2 or N3 is a more optimal position than N1, i.e., the best or optimal position being the position corresponding to the maximum number of corresponding pixels having a distance therebetween that fall below the threshold.”)
Regarding claim 2, Jordan discloses wherein the computing device is further to: (¶21 “because the articulation can be carried out using a computing system”)
determine, for at least the first datum and the second datum of the intraoral scan data, the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch. (¶154 “the interface may allow the user to hold the upper dental arch in a fixed position with the lower arch being moved relative to the upper arch”)
Regarding claim 3, Jordan discloses wherein the intraoral scan data comprises at least one of a plurality of intraoral scans or a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) images, wherein the computing device is further to: (¶162 “the images may be…intraoral photographs,”)
receive a first additional plurality of intraoral scans generated by the intraoral scanner during scanning of the upper dental arch of the patient; (¶22 “providing a first set of digital data corresponding to an upper arch image of at least a portion of an upper dental arch of a patient,”)
generate a first three-dimensional (3D) model of the upper dental arch of the patient using the first additional plurality of intraoral scans (¶51 “The model creation program 10 is provided with input data. Such input data at least in part includes digital dental arch data 14 representative of upper and lower dental arches of a patient… The model creation program 10 uses this input data to create a dental articulation model 11 which is the output of the dental creation model program 10. The dental articulation model 11 includes at least data representative of images of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient”)
receive a second additional plurality of intraoral scans generated by the intraoral scanner during scanning of the lower dental arch of the patient; and (¶22 “providing a second set of digital data corresponding to a lower arch image of at least a portion of a lower dental arch of the patient,”)
generate a second 3D model of the lower dental arch of the patient using the second additional plurality of intraoral scans. (¶51 “The model creation program 10 is provided with input data. Such input data at least in part includes digital dental arch data 14 representative of upper and lower dental arches of a patient… The model creation program 10 uses this input data to create a dental articulation model 11 which is the output of the dental creation model program 10. The dental articulation model 11 includes at least data representative of images of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient”)
Regarding claim 4, Jordan discloses wherein the first datum (¶22 “providing a first set of digital data corresponding to an upper arch image of at least a portion of an upper dental arch of a patient,”) comprises a first 2D image of the plurality of 2D images and the second datum (¶22 “providing a second set of digital data corresponding to a lower arch image of at least a portion of a lower dental arch of the patient,”) comprises a second 2D image of the plurality of 2D images. (¶28 “For example, the set of digital data may be representative of any two dimensional or three dimensional image.”)
Regarding claim 5, Jordan discloses wherein determining the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch for the first 2D image comprises:
registering a first region of the first 2D image showing a portion of the upper dental arch (¶51 “The model creation program 10 is provided with input data. Such input data at least in part includes digital dental arch data 14 representative of upper and lower dental arches of a patient”) to the first 3D model of the upper dental arch; and (¶51 “The model creation program 10 uses this input data to create a dental articulation model 11 which is the output of the dental creation model program 10. The dental articulation model 11 includes at least data representative of images of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient” Fig. 6B discloses a 3D model displaying the upper dental arch)
registering a second region of the first 2D image showing a portion of the lower dental arch (¶51 “The model creation program 10 is provided with input data. Such input data at least in part includes digital dental arch data 14 representative of upper and lower dental arches of a patient”) to the second 3D model of the lower dental arch. (¶51 “The model creation program 10 uses this input data to create a dental articulation model 11 which is the output of the dental creation model program 10. The dental articulation model 11 includes at least data representative of images of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient” Fig. 6B discloses a 3D model displaying the lower dental arch)
Regarding claim 6, Jordan discloses wherein the first datum comprises a first intraoral scan of the plurality of intraoral scans (¶22 “providing a first set of digital data corresponding to an upper arch image of at least a portion of an upper dental arch of a patient,”) and the second datum comprises a second intraoral scan (¶22 “providing a second set of digital data corresponding to a lower arch image of at least a portion of a lower dental arch of the patient,”) of the plurality of intraoral scans. (¶162 “the images may be…intraoral photographs,”)
Regarding claim 7, Jordan discloses wherein determining the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch for the first intraoral scan comprises: (¶51 “The model creation program 10 is provided with input data. Such input data at least in part includes digital dental arch data 14 representative of upper and lower dental arches of a patient”)
registering a first region of the first intraoral scan showing a portion of the upper dental arch (¶22 “providing a first set of digital data corresponding to an upper arch image of at least a portion of an upper dental arch of a patient,”) to the first 3D model of the upper dental arch; and (¶51 “The model creation program 10 uses this input data to create a dental articulation model 11 which is the output of the dental creation model program 10. The dental articulation model 11 includes at least data representative of images of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient” Fig. 6B discloses a 3D model displaying the upper dental arch)
registering a second region of the first intraoral scan showing a portion of the lower dental arch (¶22 “providing a second set of digital data corresponding to a lower arch image of at least a portion of a lower dental arch of the patient,”) to the second 3D model of the lower dental arch. (¶51 “The model creation program 10 uses this input data to create a dental articulation model 11 which is the output of the dental creation model program 10. The dental articulation model 11 includes at least data representative of images of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient” Fig. 6B discloses a 3D model displaying the upper dental arch)
Regarding claim 8, Jordan discloses wherein the intraoral scan data comprises a plurality of intraoral scans, (¶162 “the images may be…intraoral photographs,”) wherein the first datum comprises a first intraoral scan of the plurality of intraoral scans, (¶22 “providing a first set of digital data corresponding to an upper arch image of at least a portion of an upper dental arch of a patient,”) wherein the second datum comprises a second intraoral scan of the plurality of intraoral scans, (¶22 “providing a second set of digital data corresponding to a lower arch image of at least a portion of a lower dental arch of the patient,”) and wherein determining the difference in the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch between at least the first datum of the intraoral scan data and the second datum of the intraoral scan data comprises: (¶22 “Bite alignment data representative of the spatial relationship between the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch of the patient is further provided”)
identifying a first region of the first intraoral scan that shows a first portion of the upper dental arch; (¶149 “a comparison of Z values for corresponding pixels in the upper and lower phantom arch images is performed. The comparison includes calculating the distance between the corresponding pixels by taking the difference between Z.sub.upper and Z.sub.lower”)
identifying a second region of the first intraoral scan that shows a first portion of the lower dental arch; (¶149 “a comparison of Z values for corresponding pixels in the upper and lower phantom arch images is performed. The comparison includes calculating the distance between the corresponding pixels by taking the difference between Z.sub.upper and Z.sub.lower”)
determining a first relative position of the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch in the first intraoral scan based on the first region and the second region; (¶149 “The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween below a certain threshold is then generated, i.e., N1.”)
identifying a third region of the second intraoral scan that shows a second portion of the upper dental arch; (¶150 “The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween that is below the threshold is then generated for the positions of the upper dental image at the right and left of the first contact point, i.e., N2 and N3.”)
identifying a fourth region of the second intraoral scan that shows a second portion of the lower dental arch; (¶150 “The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween that is below the threshold is then generated for the positions of the upper dental image at the right and left of the first contact point, i.e., N2 and N3.”)
determining a second relative position of the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch in the second intraoral scan based on the third region and the fourth region; and (¶150 “The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween that is below the threshold is then generated for the positions of the upper dental image at the right and left of the first contact point, i.e., N2 and N3.”)
comparing the second relative position of the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch to the first relative position of the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch. (¶150 “N2 and N3 are compared to N1 to determine if the position of the upper dental arch corresponding to N2 or N3 is a more optimal position than N1, i.e., the best or optimal position being the position corresponding to the maximum number of corresponding pixels having a distance therebetween that fall below the threshold”)
Regarding claim 20, Jordan discloses wherein the difference in the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch corresponds to a movement or shift in a position of the lower dental arch relative to the upper dental arch. (¶25 “bite alignment data representative of the spatial relationship between the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch of the patient. The upper and lower arch images are moved relative to one another based on the bite alignment data until an aligned upper and lower arch image is attained.”)
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) 9, 11-16, 18-19, 21-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US 20080057466 A1) in view of Wu (US 20230048005 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Jordan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein performing the remedial action comprises notifying a user that the lower dental arch has moved relative to the upper dental arch during scanning of the bite of the patient.
In related art, Wu discloses performing the remedial action comprises notifying a user that the lower dental arch has moved relative to the upper dental arch during scanning of the bite of the patient. (Wu: ¶40 “the processor 100 determines that the registration confidence parameter of the full mouth model reaches the fourth threshold, the full mouth model has a high degree of accuracy, and the processor 100 computes the registration error E of the full mouth model. When the processor 100 determines that the registration confidence parameter of the full mouth model has not reached the fourth threshold, the full mouth model has a low accuracy, and the intraoral scanner 1 repeats Steps S702 to S714” Step S702 discloses scanning the bite of a patient)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate repeating the scanning process based on the position of the patients mouth disclosed by Wu into the method of dental model generation and bite alignment analysis disclosed by Jordan to obtain an accurate recording of a patients bite prior to model generation and bite alignment analysis.
Regarding claim 11, Jordan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein performing the remedial action comprises recommending rescanning of the bite of the patient.
In related art, Wu discloses performing the remedial action comprises recommending rescanning of the bite of the patient. (Wu: ¶40 “the processor 100 determines that the registration confidence parameter of the full mouth model reaches the fourth threshold, the full mouth model has a high degree of accuracy, and the processor 100 computes the registration error E of the full mouth model. When the processor 100 determines that the registration confidence parameter of the full mouth model has not reached the fourth threshold, the full mouth model has a low accuracy, and the intraoral scanner 1 repeats Steps S702 to S714” Repeating Step S702 repeats the scanning process)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate repeating the scanning process based on the position of the patients mouth disclosed by Wu into the method of dental model generation and bite alignment analysis disclosed by Jordan to obtain an accurate recording of a patients bite prior to model generation and bite alignment analysis.
Regarding claim 12, Jordan discloses wherein the computing device is further to: (Jordan: ¶21 “The present invention in its various embodiments is highly advantageous for the dental practitioner, because the articulation can be carried out using a computing system”)
Jordan fails to specifically disclose determine a first subset of the intraoral scan data having a first relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch and a second subset of the intraoral scan data having a second relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch.
In related art, Wu discloses wherein determine a first subset of the intraoral scan data having a first relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch and a second subset of the intraoral scan data having a second relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch. (Wu: ¶17 ”Next, in order to obtain a relative positional relationship between the upper arch model and the lower arch model, the intraoral scanner 10 may scan a buccal bite area 24 to obtain a plurality of bite images, and create a bite model according to the plurality of bite images” Wu discloses multiple images containing an upper dental arch and a lower dental arch)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate collecting multiple images containing both an upper dental arch and lower dental arch disclosed by Wu into the method of dental model generation and bite alignment analysis disclosed by Jordan to have a variety of data to utilize when determining bite alignment of the upper dental arch and lower dental arch.
Regarding claim 13, Jordan, as modified by Wu, disclose wherein the computing device is further to: (Jordan: ¶21 “The present invention in its various embodiments is highly advantageous for the dental practitioner, because the articulation can be carried out using a computing system”)
prompt a user to select the first relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch or the second relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch; and (Jordan: ¶149 “The upper and lower phantom arch images are then moved closer to one another until a first contact point 72 is detected.” Jordan discloses the user selecting the relative position of the lower dental arch and upper dental arch)
receive a user selection of the first relative position of the lower dental arch. (Jordan: ¶149 “The upper and lower phantom arch images are then moved closer to one another until a first contact point 72 is detected.” Jordan discloses the user selecting the relative position of the lower dental arch and upper dental arch)
Regarding claim 14, Jordan, as modified by Wu, disclose wherein the computing device is further to: (Jordan: ¶21 “The present invention in its various embodiments is highly advantageous for the dental practitioner, because the articulation can be carried out using a computing system”)
discard the second subset of the intraoral scan data. (Wu: ¶40 “the processor 100 determines that the registration confidence parameter of the full mouth model reaches the fourth threshold, the full mouth model has a high degree of accuracy, and the processor 100 computes the registration error E of the full mouth model. When the processor 100 determines that the registration confidence parameter of the full mouth model has not reached the fourth threshold, the full mouth model has a low accuracy, and the intraoral scanner 1 repeats Steps S702 to S714” Wu discloses discarding a full mouth model and repeating the scanning process)
Regarding claim 15, Jordan, as modified by Wu, disclose wherein the computing device is further to: (Jordan: ¶21 “The present invention in its various embodiments is highly advantageous for the dental practitioner, because the articulation can be carried out using a computing system”)
adjust the second subset of the intraoral scan data to have the first relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch. (Jordan: ¶149 “The upper and lower phantom arch images are then moved closer to one another until a first contact point 72 is detected (FIG. 10C)… The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween below a certain threshold is then generated, i.e., N1.” ¶149 discloses adjusting the relative positions of the upper dental arch and lower dental arch. ¶150 discloses adjusting the mouth model to find the optimal position on the dental model)
Regarding claim 16, Jordan, as modified by Wu, disclose wherein the computing device is further to: (Jordan: ¶21 “The present invention in its various embodiments is highly advantageous for the dental practitioner, because the articulation can be carried out using a computing system”)
prompt a user to rescan a region of the bite of the patient associated with the second subset of the intraoral scan data. (Wu: ¶40 “the processor 100 determines that the registration confidence parameter of the full mouth model reaches the fourth threshold, the full mouth model has a high degree of accuracy, and the processor 100 computes the registration error E of the full mouth model. When the processor 100 determines that the registration confidence parameter of the full mouth model has not reached the fourth threshold, the full mouth model has a low accuracy, and the intraoral scanner 1 repeats Steps S702 to S714” Wu discloses discarding a full mouth model and repeating the scanning process)
Regarding claim 18, Jordan, as modified by Wu, disclose wherein the computing device is further to: (Jordan: ¶21 “The present invention in its various embodiments is highly advantageous for the dental practitioner, because the articulation can be carried out using a computing system”)
generate a multi-bite solution comprising the first relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch and the second relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch. (Wu: ¶40 “the processor 100 determines that the registration confidence parameter of the full mouth model reaches the fourth threshold, the full mouth model has a high degree of accuracy, and the processor 100 computes the registration error E of the full mouth model. When the processor 100 determines that the registration confidence parameter of the full mouth model has not reached the fourth threshold, the full mouth model has a low accuracy, and the intraoral scanner 1 repeats Steps S702 to S714” Wu discloses scanning another bite of the patient if the first mouth model has low accuracy)
Regarding claim 19, Jordan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein performing the remedial action comprises prompting a user to rescan a portion of the bite of the patient.
In related art, Wu discloses performing the remedial action comprises prompting a user to rescan a portion of the bite of the patient. (Wu: ¶40 “the processor 100 determines that the registration confidence parameter of the full mouth model reaches the fourth threshold, the full mouth model has a high degree of accuracy, and the processor 100 computes the registration error E of the full mouth model. When the processor 100 determines that the registration confidence parameter of the full mouth model has not reached the fourth threshold, the full mouth model has a low accuracy, and the intraoral scanner 1 repeats Steps S702 to S714” Repeating Step S702 repeats the scanning process)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate repeating the scanning process based on the position of the patients mouth disclosed by Wu into the method of dental model generation and bite alignment analysis disclosed by Jordan to obtain an accurate recording of a patients bite prior to model generation and bite alignment analysis.
Regarding claim 21, Jordan discloses when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: (Jordan: ¶120 “It is also readily apparent that the present invention may be adapted to be operable using any processing system,” )
receiving intraoral scan data generated by an intraoral scanner during scanning of a bite of a patient, wherein each datum of the intraoral scan data shows a portion of a lower dental arch and a portion of an upper dental arch of the patient; (Jordan: ¶22 “a first set of digital data corresponding to an upper arch image of at least a portion of an upper dental arch of a patient, providing a second set of digital data corresponding to a lower arch image of at least a portion of a lower dental arch of the patient,”)
determining a difference in a relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch between at least a first datum of the intraoral scan data and a second datum of the intraoral scan data; and (Jordan: ¶22 “Bite alignment data representative of the spatial relationship between the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch of the patient is further provided”)
performing a remedial action responsive to determining that the difference in the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch exceeds a difference threshold. (Jordan: ¶149 “The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween below a certain threshold is then generated, i.e., N1.” ¶150 “The upper dental arch image is then moved to the right and to the left of the first contact point in pixel resolution, preferably one pixel. The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween that is below the threshold is then generated for the positions of the upper dental image at the right and left of the first contact point, i.e., N2 and N3. N2 and N3 are compared to N1 to determine if the position of the upper dental arch corresponding to N2 or N3 is a more optimal position than N1, i.e., the best or optimal position being the position corresponding to the maximum number of corresponding pixels having a distance therebetween that fall below the threshold.”)
Jordan fails to specifically disclose A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
In related art, Wu discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, (Wu: ¶18 “ The memory 106 may be a non-volatile memory such as a random access memory or a hard drive.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the non-volatile computer readable medium disclosed by Wu into the method of dental model generation and bite alignment analysis disclosed by Jordan to store the necessary data and processes to perform bite scanning and model generation.
Regarding claim 22, Jordan, as modified by Wu disclose wherein determining, for at least the first datum and the second datum of the intraoral scan data, the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch. (Jordan: ¶154 “the interface may allow the user to hold the upper dental arch in a fixed position with the lower arch being moved relative to the upper arch”)
Regarding claim 23, Jordan, as modified by Wu, disclose wherein the intraoral scan data comprises at least one of a plurality of intraoral scans or a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) images, the operations further comprising: (Jordan: ¶162 “the images may be…intraoral photographs,”)
receiving a first additional plurality of intraoral scans generated by the intraoral scanner during scanning of the upper dental arch of the patient; (Jordan: ¶22 “providing a first set of digital data corresponding to an upper arch image of at least a portion of an upper dental arch of a patient,”)
generating a first three-dimensional (3D) model of the upper dental arch of the patient using the first additional plurality of intraoral scans; (Jordan: ¶51 “The model creation program 10 is provided with input data. Such input data at least in part includes digital dental arch data 14 representative of upper and lower dental arches of a patient… The model creation program 10 uses this input data to create a dental articulation model 11 which is the output of the dental creation model program 10. The dental articulation model 11 includes at least data representative of images of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient”)
receiving a second additional plurality of intraoral scans generated by the intraoral scanner during scanning of the lower dental arch of the patient; and (Jordan: ¶22 “providing a second set of digital data corresponding to a lower arch image of at least a portion of a lower dental arch of the patient,”)
generating a second 3D model of the lower dental arch of the patient using the second additional plurality of intraoral scans. (Jordan: ¶51 “The model creation program 10 is provided with input data. Such input data at least in part includes digital dental arch data 14 representative of upper and lower dental arches of a patient… The model creation program 10 uses this input data to create a dental articulation model 11 which is the output of the dental creation model program 10. The dental articulation model 11 includes at least data representative of images of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient”)
Regarding claim 24, Jordan, as modified by Wu, disclose wherein the intraoral scan data comprises a plurality of intraoral scans, (Jordan: ¶162 “the images may be…intraoral photographs,”) wherein the first datum comprises a first intraoral scan of the plurality of intraoral scans, (Jordan: ¶22 “providing a first set of digital data corresponding to an upper arch image of at least a portion of an upper dental arch of a patient,”) wherein the second datum comprises a second intraoral scan of the plurality of intraoral scans, (Jordan: ¶22 “providing a second set of digital data corresponding to a lower arch image of at least a portion of a lower dental arch of the patient,”) and wherein determining the difference in the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch between at least the first datum of the intraoral scan data and the second datum of the intraoral scan data comprises: (Jordan: ¶22 “Bite alignment data representative of the spatial relationship between the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch of the patient is further provided”)
identifying a first region of the first intraoral scan that shows a first portion of the upper dental arch; (Jordan: ¶149 “a comparison of Z values for corresponding pixels in the upper and lower phantom arch images is performed. The comparison includes calculating the distance between the corresponding pixels by taking the difference between Z.sub.upper and Z.sub.lower”)
identifying a second region of the first intraoral scan that shows a first portion of the lower dental arch; (Jordan: ¶149 “a comparison of Z values for corresponding pixels in the upper and lower phantom arch images is performed. The comparison includes calculating the distance between the corresponding pixels by taking the difference between Z.sub.upper and Z.sub.lower”)
determining a first relative position of the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch in the first intraoral scan based on the first region and the second region; (Jordan: ¶149 “The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween below a certain threshold is then generated, i.e., N1.”)
identifying a third region of the second intraoral scan that shows a second portion of the upper dental arch; (Jordan: ¶150 “The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween that is below the threshold is then generated for the positions of the upper dental image at the right and left of the first contact point, i.e., N2 and N3.”)
identifying a fourth region of the second intraoral scan that shows a second portion of the lower dental arch; (Jordan: ¶150 “The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween that is below the threshold is then generated for the positions of the upper dental image at the right and left of the first contact point, i.e., N2 and N3.”)
determining a second relative position of the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch in the second intraoral scan based on the third region and the fourth region; and (Jordan: ¶150 “The number of corresponding pixels in the upper and lower dental arch images having a distance therebetween that is below the threshold is then generated for the positions of the upper dental image at the right and left of the first contact point, i.e., N2 and N3.”)
comparing the second relative position of the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch to the first relative position of the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch. (Jordan: ¶150 “N2 and N3 are compared to N1 to determine if the position of the upper dental arch corresponding to N2 or N3 is a more optimal position than N1, i.e., the best or optimal position being the position corresponding to the maximum number of corresponding pixels having a distance therebetween that fall below the threshold”)
Regarding claim 26, Jordan, as modified by Wu, disclose wherein determining a first subset of the intraoral scan data having a first relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch and a second subset of the intraoral scan data having a second relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch; (Wu: ¶17 ”Next, in order to obtain a relative positional relationship between the upper arch model and the lower arch model, the intraoral scanner 10 may scan a buccal bite area 24 to obtain a plurality of bite images, and create a bite model according to the plurality of bite images” Wu discloses multiple images containing an upper dental arch and a lower dental arch)
prompting a user to select the first relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch or the second relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch; and receiving a user selection of the first relative position of the lower dental arch; (Jordan: ¶149 “The upper and lower phantom arch images are then moved closer to one another until a first contact point 72 is detected.” Jordan discloses the user selecting the relative position of the lower dental arch and upper dental arch) and receiving a user selection of the first relative position of the lower dental arch. (Jordan: ¶149 “The upper and lower phantom arch images are then moved closer to one another until a first contact point 72 is detected.” Jordan discloses the user selecting the relative position of the lower dental arch and upper dental arch)
Regarding claim 27, Jordan, as modified by Wu, disclose wherein the difference in the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch corresponds to a movement or shift in a position of the lower dental arch relative to the upper dental arch. (Jordan: ¶25 “bite alignment data representative of the spatial relationship between the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch of the patient. The upper and lower arch images are moved relative to one another based on the bite alignment data until an aligned upper and lower arch image is attained.”)
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US 20080057466 A1) in view of Kopelman (US 20180168781 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Jordan discloses the computing device is further to: (Jordan: ¶21 “The present invention in its various embodiments is highly advantageous for the dental practitioner, because the articulation can be carried out using a computing system”)
responsive to determining that the difference is below the difference threshold (Jordan: ¶149 and ¶150 discloses a difference threshold to be met by the full mouth models formed from upper dental arches and lower dental arches.)
Jordan fails to specifically disclose wherein average the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch from the first datum and the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch from the second datum.
In related art, Kopelman discloses average the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch from the first datum and the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch from the second datum. (Kopelman: ¶276 “An average of the occlusion maps for the different relative positions of the upper and lower dental arches may optionally be computed to determine a final occlusion map.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the averaging the relative position of the upper dental arches and lower dental arches disclosed by Kopelman into the method of dental model generation and bite alignment analysis disclosed by Jordan to average the relative position of the upper dental arch and lower dental arch to generate another occlusion model such that the new model may be above the threshold.
Claim(s) 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan (US 20080057466 A1) in view of Wu (US 20230048005 A1) and in further view of Kopelman (US 20180168781 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Jordan, as modified by Wu, discloses wherein the computing device is further to: (Jordan: ¶21 “The present invention in its various embodiments is highly advantageous for the dental practitioner, because the articulation can be carried out using a computing system”)
Jordan, as modified by Wu, fails to specifically disclose average the first relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch from the first subset of the intraoral scan data and the second relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch from the second subset of the intraoral scan data.
In related art, Kopelman discloses average the first relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch from the first subset of the intraoral scan data and the second relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch from the second subset of the intraoral scan data. (Kopelman: ¶276 “An average of the occlusion maps for the different relative positions of the upper and lower dental arches may optionally be computed to determine a final occlusion map.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the averaging the relative position of the upper dental arches and lower dental arches disclosed by Kopelman into the method of dental model generation and bite alignment analysis disclosed by Jordan, as modified by Wu, to average the relative position of the upper dental arch and lower dental arch to generate another occlusion model such that the new model may be above the threshold.
Regarding claim 25, Jordan, as modified by Wu, disclose wherein responsive to determining that the difference is below the difference threshold. (Jordan: ¶149 and ¶150 discloses a difference threshold to be met by the full mouth models formed from upper dental arches and lower dental arches.)
Jordan, as modified by Wu, fails to specifically disclose averaging the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch from the first datum and the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch from the second datum
In related art, Kopelman discloses averaging the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch from the first datum and the relative position of the lower dental arch to the upper dental arch from the second datum (Kopelman: ¶276 “An average of the occlusion maps for the different relative positions of the upper and lower dental arches may optionally be computed to determine a final occlusion map.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the averaging the relative position of the upper dental arches and lower dental arches disclosed by Kopelman into the method of dental model generation and bite alignment analysis disclosed by Jordan to average the relative position of the upper dental arch and lower dental arch to generate another occlusion model such that the new model may be above the threshold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Glinec (US 20160008116 A1) discloses a method and system for bite registration using multiple bite registrations. In this method or system, when both the 3D teeth model of the upper jaw and the 3D teeth model of the lower jaw are successfully aligned with the bite surface, the bite surface with the 3D teeth models of the upper jaw and the lower jaw is displayed for further evaluation; the bite surfaces selected by the user are combined to generate a final bite registration. Using multiple bite surfaces for registration improves the accuracy.
Lee (US 20240268929 A1) discloses a data processing apparatus for processing an intraoral image and an intraoral image processing method. An intraoral image processing method of a data processing apparatus includes obtaining upper-jaw scan data obtained by scanning an upper jaw of an oral cavity, lower-jaw scan data obtained by scanning a lower jaw of the oral cavity, and occlusion scan data obtained by scanning an occlusion state of the upper jaw and the lower jaw, selecting a mobility tooth, and performing occlusion alignment of the upper-jaw scan data and the lower-jaw scan data based on the occlusion scan data excluding the selected mobility tooth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL KIM MAIDEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Koziol can be reached at 4089187630. 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.
/MICHAEL KIM MAIDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665