DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on October 09, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 16, 18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 4, 5, 14, 15 and 17 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 6-13, 16 and 18-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 11 and 20 being independent.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite “replacing data about the restoration…” It should read “replacing the data about the restoration…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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, 2, 9-12, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hultgren et al. (US 20160175076 A1), referred herein as Hultgren (from IDS) in view of CHOI et al. (US 20220087791 A1), referred herein as CHOI.
Regarding Claim 1, Hultgren in view of Willis teaches an image processing method comprising (Hultgren [0006] a system and method for simulating occlusal interference using a functional bite map):
obtaining an oral image comprising data about at least one tooth and data about a restoration (Hultgren [0050] using a functional bite map to fabricate a dental restoration 134; [0057] still images are captured of the patient's dentition while the dentition of the patient is positioned in a plurality of bite locations);
obtaining, based on the oral image, an intersection area where a first tooth of the at least one tooth and the restoration overlap each other (Hultgren [0159] In the example shown, the regions 812, 814, 816, and 818 are displayed in different colors that represent the distance between the regions and the interference surface 790 (shown in FIG. 21). Although the embodiment shown in FIG. 22 includes four regions, other embodiments include more or fewer regions); and
Hultgren discloses interference model data, but does not explicitly disclose obtaining a final image of the restoration. However, CHOI teaches obtaining a final image of the restoration (CHOI [0183] obtaining a motion image, correcting the temporary dental restoration, and obtaining a three-dimensional planning image (s530), generating design information of a dental restoration and overlapping the motion image (s540), and deleting the motion image and manufacturing a final dental restoration (s550)).
Hultgren in view of CHOI further teaches by
obtaining first data by moving data about the first tooth corresponding to the intersection area by a first distance (Hultgren [0159] In the example shown, the regions 812, 814, 816, and 818 are displayed in different colors that represent the distance between the regions and the interference surface 790; [0160] the distance is only calculated for vertices that intersect with surface represented by the interference model data 122; [0185] the interior surface of the provisional restoration mold 908 is shifted in the vertical dimension by an amount corresponding to a desired change in the vertical dimension of occlusion of the patient's dentition. The vertical dimension of occlusion refers to the distance between the maxilla and mandible when in maximum intercuspation), and
replacing data about the restoration corresponding to the intersection area with the first data (Hultgren [0125] the interference model data 122 is generated by sweeping a portion of the digital dental model 120; [0220] At operation 1258, an arch is selected. At operation 1260, an interference surface opposing the selected arch is generated. In some embodiments, the interference surface is generated by sweeping the initial arrangement of teeth (or dentition from the digital dental model 120 when the denture is being fabricated for a single arch) opposing the selected arch according to the received movement information; [0223] After operation 1268, the method proceeds back to operation 1260 where an interference surface is generated and the rest of the method 1250 can be repeated to adjust the opposite arch. In some embodiments, the method 1250 iterates between adjusting the arches multiple times to eliminate or minimize interferences).
CHOI discloses a dental restoration manufacturing method for improving the precision and reliability of a dental restoration. CHOI is analogous to the present patent application.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hultgren to incorporate the teachings of CHOI, and applying the target image obtained by an image-capturing device into the computer-aided-design (CAD) software that generates a graphical display of one or both of the interference model data 122 and the dental restoration data 124.
Doing so, an operation time may be significantly reduced and a reliability of the design information of the dental restoration which is obtained thereby may be significantly improved.
Regarding Claim 2, Hultgren in view of CHOI teaches the image processing method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first tooth comprises at least one of an opposing tooth engaged with the restoration and an adjacent tooth adjacent to the restoration (Hultgren FIG. 21; FIG. 22; [0141] FIG. 16 is an illustration of an example embodiment of the interference model 128 joined with a dental model 640. The interference model 128 includes the interference surface 580, and the opposing dentition surface 646. The dental model 640 includes a model 642 of the restoration site R, and a model 644 of the adjacent dentition).
Regarding Claim 9, Hultgren in view of CHOI teaches the image processing method of claim 1, and further teaches further comprising displaying the oral image, wherein the displaying of the oral image comprises displaying a degree of overlapping between the restoration and the first tooth in the intersection area in a color (Hultgren FIG. 21; FIG. 22; [0157] the interference surface 790 is compared to the exterior surface 792 to generate a color map representing the interferences between the dental restoration data 124 and the interference model data 122).
Regarding Claim 10, Hultgren in view of CHOI teaches the image processing method of claim 1, and further teaches further comprising displaying the final image of the restoration (CHOI [0067] display and eliminate an overlapped region to be eliminated in an overlapped occluding region in a virtual masticating surface; [0183] obtaining a motion image, correcting the temporary dental restoration, and obtaining a three-dimensional planning image (s530), generating design information of a dental restoration and overlapping the motion image (s540), and deleting the motion image and manufacturing a final dental restoration (s550)).
Regarding Claims 11, 12, and 19, Hultgren in view of CHOI teaches an image processing apparatus comprising: a display; a memory storing one or more instructions; and a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory (Hultgren [0002] The present invention relates to a medical image processing apparatus, an endoscope system, a medical image processing method, and a medical image processing program, and more specifically to a technique for displaying a recognition result of a region of interest; FIG. 2). The metes and bounds of the limitations of the claims substantially correspond to the elements set forth in claims 1, 2, 9 and 10; thus they are rejected on similar grounds and rationale as their corresponding limitations.
Regarding Claim 20, Hultgren in view of CHOI teaches a computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program comprising at least one instruction for executing an image processing method on a computer (Hultgren [0002] The present invention relates to a medical image processing apparatus, an endoscope system, a medical image processing method, and a medical image processing program, and more specifically to a technique for displaying a recognition result of a region of interest; [0082] Computer readable storage media includes volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any device configured to store information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data). The metes and bounds of the limitations of the claims substantially correspond to the elements set forth in claim 1; thus they are rejected on similar grounds and rationale as their corresponding limitations.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 8, 13, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hultgren et al. (US 20160175076 A1), referred herein as Hultgren (from IDS) in view of CHOI et al. (US 20220087791 A1), referred herein as CHOI and Willis et al. (US 20200151286 A1), referred herein as Willis.
Regarding Claim 3, Hultgren in view of Willis teaches the image processing method of claim 1, but does not teach the claimed limitation herein.
However, Willis teaches wherein the obtaining of the intersection area comprises:
performing a ray-intersection test by generating virtual rays in a direction opposite to a normal direction of vertices included in data about the first tooth (Willis [0109] In order to account for interference with the head, a second ray intersection test can be executed using an offset surface); and
obtaining the intersection area based on the intersecting virtual rays (Willis [0143] First, compute the intersection polygon P=∂custom-character∩π.sub.i of π.sub.i with the (integer) axis aligned box ∂custom-character. Then, compute the minimum area coplanar rectangle B⊇P).
Willis discloses technologies relating to computer aided design of physical structures using generative design processes. Willis is analogous to the present patent application.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hultgren to incorporate the teachings of Willis, and applying the ray intersection test into the computer-aided-design (CAD) software that generates a graphical display of one or both of the interference model data 122 and the dental restoration data 124.
Doing so would provide the possibility to evaluate production cost of a 3D model and to perform a final precise simulation of the production of the 3D model.
Regarding Claim 6, Hultgren in view of CHOI teaches the image processing method of claim 5. However, Hultgren in view of CHOI and Willis further teaches wherein the obtaining of the final image of the restoration comprises:
obtaining second data that connects the first data to data about the first tooth which is not moved (Hultgren [0161] the regions 814 and 818 are colored a second color. Here, the second color indicates that the regions 814 and 818 are close to interfering with the interference surface 790. For example, in some embodiments, the second color indicates that the vertices in the regions 814 and 818 are between 0 and 100 micrometers away from the interference surface 790); and
obtaining the final image of the restoration by replacing a part of the data about the restoration with the second data (Willis [0012] The providing can include converting (i) a polygon mesh, which is output by the boundary-based generative design process, or (ii) generative design data obtained directly from the boundary-based generative design process, e.g., level-set distance fields data… generating toolpath specifications for a 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing machine using the three dimensional model; and manufacturing at least a portion of the physical structure corresponding to the object; [0139] the contours are extracted 1012 from level-set data, where the level-set input is defined by a set of values on a 3D voxel grid, where each value represents the distance to the implicit level-set surface). The same motivation as claim 3 applies here.
Regarding Claim 8, Hultgren in view of CHOI and Willis teaches the image processing method of claim 1. However, Willis teaches further comprising receiving a user input to set the first distance (Willis [0161] Thus, the user is free to modify the different contours for respective height layers of the object to be manufactured using the 2.5-axis subtractive manufacturing process, and the parametric feature history automatically reconstructed the modified 3D model in response to these user edits. This creates an easy to use editor interface for the user, which allows quick changes to the 3D model). The same motivation as claim 6 apples here.
Regarding Claims 13, 16 and 18, Hultgren in view of CHOI teaches the image processing apparatus of claim 11. The metes and bounds of the limitations of the claims substantially correspond to the elements set forth in claims 3, 6 and 8; thus they are rejected on similar grounds and rationale as their corresponding limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 09, 2025, with respect to the 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10, Applicant's Remarks, with respect to claim 1, the applicant argues Hultgren does not disclose or suggest automatically obtaining modified data of the opposing tooth by shifting it by a preset distance and replacing the interference area of the restoration with such data. The applicant further argues CHOI does not disclose moving opposing tooth data by a preset distance to define replacement data. Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., automatically obtaining modified data of the opposing tooth by shifting it by a preset distance) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Hultgren explicitly disclosed a motion capture apparatus configured to capture a plurality of location data points, the location data points representing the locations of the opposing dental arch relative to the restoration dental arch as the dentition moves between a plurality of bite positions (see [0007]). Therefore, the offset from the surface of the restoration site R by an offset amount is determined by operation 724: the dental restoration 134 is compared to the interference model 128. Therefore, Hultgren actually teaches the unclaimed limitation of “automatically obtaining modified data of the opposing tooth”. In addition, regions 812, 814, 816, and 818 in FIG. 22 represent areas of each overlapping region, and inherently teaches the shifting distance that to be removed from restoration data. Hultgren further recited “At operation 1258, an arch is selected. At operation 1260, an interference surface opposing the selected arch is generated. In some embodiments, the interference surface is generated by sweeping the initial arrangement of teeth (or dentition from the digital dental model 120 when the denture is being fabricated for a single arch) opposing the selected arch according to the received movement information. In some embodiments, the interference surface is generated in a manner similar to that illustrated and described with respect to FIG. 13” (see [0220]). In order to minimize interferences, the method 1250-1268 of Hultgren is performed by sweeping the initial dental restorations model (see [0223]). The sweeping/cutting process is equivalent to the replace process because both achieves the same result of removing unnecessary portion of the restoration model and maintain the data of the original opposing tooth. Regarding these arguments, it is respectfully noted that, Hultgren in view of CHOI teaches every single claimed limitations of claim 1, as amended.
On page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues claims 11, 17, and the dependent claims are not taught by the prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments, for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Samantha (Yuehan) Wang whose telephone number is (571)270-5011. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, King Poon can be reached on (571)272-7440. 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.
/Samantha (YUEHAN) WANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2617