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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant’s specification paragraph [0062] discloses an orthodontic treatment device may a first base surface for attachment to a surface of a first tooth. The underlined portion should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites multiple modules but does not provide distinct name for them. The use of the same name for modules with different functions may cause confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a module in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, III (US 2020/0401104) in view of Grapsas (US 2018/0267509).
Regarding claim 1, Griffin, III (hereinafter Griffin) discloses a computer implemented method for generating an input file for a 3D printer (Griffin, [0027], “a direct manufacturing process 100 of lingual or labial orthodontic brackets by digital light processing is shown in FIG. 1”. In addition, in paragraph [0033], “the 3D CAD bracket structure model is transmitted to or imported into a 3D production machine, such as a DLP machine”), the method comprising:
a virtual model of a patient's teeth (Griffin, [0028], “In 104, based on the given dentition data, a 3D CAD model of the measured teeth is constructed based on the dentition data and saved in the computer in a typical file format, such as the .stl file format”);
a virtual orthodontic treatment device (Griffin, [0030], “In 108, the bracket (or brackets) is designed by the software based on the input 3D CAD model of the measured teeth, the model of the desired treatment outcomes, and the input additional information. The output of the design process may be a 3D CAD model. Such a 3D CAD model may be designed for a single lingual/labial bracket structure, including the bracket guide and bracket pad in contact with teeth surface”); and
generating an input file for a 3D printer based on the virtual orthodontic treatment device (Griffin, [0032], “where DLP equipment is used to produce the brackets, the software slices the 3D CAD bracket structure models to separate it into thin layers and get the horizontal section model for each layer. Based on this section model, the DLP equipment can directly produce ceramic brackets, ensuring the shape of each layer is consistent to the 3D CAD structure data”).
Griffin does not expressly disclose “visualizing the virtual model on a display”;
Grapsas discloses visualizing a virtual model on a display (Grapsas, [0013], “present a representation of a wire via a display device based on the input”);
visualizing a predefined a virtual orthodontic treatment device on the display (Grapsas, [0059], “user interface for the CAD system in which a wire template is used to define a wire”. The virtual archwire template is a predefined orthodontic treatment device. The archwire is configured for treatment);
adapting a shape of the predefined virtual orthodontic treatment device in response to user input and at least partially based on the virtual model of the patient's teeth to generate an adapted virtual orthodontic treatment device (Grapsas, [0085], “the user can manipulate the representation of the wire shape by selecting a point (e.g., 140a-140k in the point list pane 40) and then changing the offset data value 61, diameter data value 62, or bend radius value 63 for the selected point. The user may also move the location of the selected point to adjust the shape of the wire”. Fig. 5 illustrates at least partially based on the virtual model of the patient's teeth to generate an adapted virtual orthodontic treatment device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Grapsas’s technique for shaping a virtual orthodontic treatment object to adjust Griffin’s 3D CAD model. The motivation for doing so would have been improving fitting precision and effectiveness of treatment.
Regarding claim 6, Griffin discloses separate virtual objects (Griffin, [0030], “In 108, the bracket (or brackets) is designed by the software based on the input 3D CAD model of the measured teeth, the model of the desired treatment outcomes, and the input additional information. The output of the design process may be a 3D CAD model”. Brackets are considered separate virtual objects).
Griffin as modified by Grapsas with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses predefined virtual objects (Grapsas, [0059], “user interface for the CAD system in which a wire template is used to define a wire”).
Regarding claim 7, Griffin discloses the separate virtual objects (Griffin, [0030], “In 108, the bracket (or brackets) is designed by the software based on the input 3D CAD model of the measured teeth, the model of the desired treatment outcomes, and the input additional information. The output of the design process may be a 3D CAD model”);
Griffin as modified by Grapsas with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses relative positions and/or orientations of the predefined virtual orthodontic treatment device are adaptable according to user input (Grapsas, [0068], “Each wire segment can be edited by clicking on the wire to access a segment editing menu 1450. The menu 1450 includes options by which the user may edit the segment or the adjacent segments. Different segments of the wire template have predefined editing options. For example, the large arc at the front of the labial bow illustrated in FIG. 14 can be edited to extend the start of the art or extend the end of the arc. These editing options change the length of the large arc at the respective ends of the arc. The large arc can also be edited by rotating the arc at the start or rotating the arc at the end. These editing options change the angular orientation of semi-circular features at either end of the large arc. Lastly, the user may adjust the arc diameter to change how the large arc interacts with the front of the patient's jaw”).
Regarding claim 9, Griffin discloses the input file for the 3D printer is .stl (Griffin, [0009], “importing data related to the 3D CAD bracket structure model into a Digital Light Processing (DLP) machine”. In addition, in paragraph [0014], “The 3D CAD model may be saved as an .stl file”);
(Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1any of claims 1 - 8, wherein the input file for the 3D printer is in one of the following formats: .stl, .obj, .gcode, .amf, .vrml, .ply, .fbx, .3mf.
Regarding claim 10, Griffin as modified by Grapsas with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses receiving or generating the virtual model of the patient's teeth (Grapsas, [0076], “presents a three-dimensional solid model of the patient's jaw and teeth. The model of the patient's mouth may be captured directly by scanning the patient's jaw and teeth with an oral imaging device or indirectly by scanning a physical model or casting of the patient's mouth”).
Regarding claim 11, Griffin discloses images made by an intraoral scanner (Griffin, [0017], “Measuring dentition data may be performed using a CT scanner, intra-oral scanner”);
Griffin as modified by Grapsas with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses the virtual model of the patient's teeth is derived from images (Grapsas, [0076], “presents a three-dimensional solid model of the patient's jaw and teeth. The model of the patient's mouth may be captured directly by scanning the patient's jaw and teeth with an oral imaging device or indirectly by scanning a physical model or casting of the patient's mouth”).
Regarding claim 12, Griffin as modified by Grapsas with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses a selection of a point, surface or line of the virtual model of the patient's teeth (Grapsas, [0077], “a solid model from the input device 602, and the user selects points on the surface of the solid model from which the CAD system 604 determines the wire shape”).
Regarding claim 15, Griffin discloses a computer system (Griffin, [0025], “FIG. 7 is an exemplary block diagram of an embodiment of a computer system”):
a non-volatile memory and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to carry out the method (Griffin, [0057], “Memory 708 stores program instructions that are executed by, and data that are used and processed by, CPU 702 to perform the functions of computer system 700”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, III (US 2020/0401104) in view of Grapsas (US 2018/0267509), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Sporbert et al. (US 2010/0106465).
Regarding claim 2, though Griffin as modified by Grapsas teaches predefined virtual orthodontic treatment devices; Griffin as modified by Grapsas does not expressly disclose “selected from a library”;
Sporbert et al. (hereinafter Sporbert) discloses selected from a library (Sporbert, [0084], “The digital models of the brackets, arch wires and other orthodontic appliances can be stored in the workstation storage in the form of libraries”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Griffin as modified by Grapsas’s predefined virtual orthodontic objects using Sporbert’s libraries. The motivation for doing so would have been facilitating quick access to predefined objects instead of recreating them.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, III (US 2020/0401104) in view of Grapsas (US 2018/0267509) in view of Sporbert et al. (US 2010/0106465), as applied to claim 2, in further view of Cinader, JR. (US 2019/0046298).
Regarding claim 3, Griffin as modified by Grapsas with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses an adaptable portion which can be adapted in response to user input (Grapsas, [0085], “the user can manipulate the representation of the wire shape by selecting a point (e.g., 140a-140k in the point list pane 40) and then changing the offset data value 61, diameter data value 62, or bend radius value 63 for the selected point. The user may also move the location of the selected point to adjust the shape of the wire”); Griffin as modified by Grapsas and Sporbert does not expressly disclose “a non-adaptable portion which cannot be adapted in response to user input”;
Cinader, JR. (hereinafter Cinader) discloses a non-adaptable portion which cannot be adapted (Cinader, [0039], “The coordinated adjustment appliance 10 includes a removable section 100 and a fixed section 200. The fixed section includes two or more anchors 210 and at least one arch member 250”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the fixed section of Cinader in Griffin’s CAD model comprising a virtual orthodontic device. The motivation for doing so would have been allowing the fixed portion to be reused for multiple designs, while only the adaptable portion is changed as needed.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, III (US 2020/0401104) in view of Grapsas (US 2018/0267509) in view of Sporbert et al. (US 2010/0106465) in view of Cinader, JR. (US 2019/0046298), as applied to claim 3, in further view of Sachdeva et al. (US 2020/0060789).
Regarding claim 4, Griffin as modified by Grapsas, Sporbert and Cinader does not expressly disclose “a joint”;
Sachdeva et al. (hereinafter Sachdeva) discloses a joint (Sachdeva, [0102], “the first element 162 is removably received inside a tube portion 166 of the second element 164 forming/defining a swivel joint”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the joint of Sachdeva into Griffin as modified by Grapsas, Sporbert and Cinader’s as a non-adaptable portion. The motivation for doing so would have been facilitating the reuse of the fixed portion across various designs.
Regarding claim 16, Griffin discloses the orthodontic treatment device (Griffin, [0030], “In 108, the bracket (or brackets) is designed by the software based on the input 3D CAD model of the measured teeth, the model of the desired treatment outcomes, and the input additional information. The output of the design process may be a 3D CAD model. Such a 3D CAD model may be designed for a single lingual/labial bracket structure, including the bracket guide and bracket pad in contact with teeth surface”);
Griffin as modified by Grapsas, Sporbert, Cinader and Sachdeva with the same motivation from claim 4 discloses an active element (Sachdeva, [0092], “the elastic member 160 may be under tension, and hence applies a force on the elongated member 104 and elongated receptacle 102 to move the elongated member 104 and the elongated receptacle 102 towards each other”. The elastic member is considered an active element).
Claims 5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, III (US 2020/0401104) in view of Grapsas (US 2018/0267509) in view of Sporbert et al. (US 2010/0106465) in view of Cinader, JR. (US 2019/0046298), as applied to claim 3, in further view of Raby et al. (US 2009/0017410).
Regarding claim 5, Griffin discloses the orthodontic treatment device to the patient's mouth (Griffin, [0030], “In 108, the bracket (or brackets) is designed by the software based on the input 3D CAD model of the measured teeth, the model of the desired treatment outcomes, and the input additional information. The output of the design process may be a 3D CAD model”);
Griffin as modified by Grapsas, Sporbert, and Cinader does not expressly disclose “a base for anchoring”;
Raby et al. (hereinafter Raby) discloses a base for anchoring orthodontic appliance (Raby, [0067], “custom base calculation module 36 may indicate a thickness at one or more custom base portions by generating a thickness map that rendering engine 38 presents to practitioner 14. The thickness map visually indicates the thicknesses of different portions of the custom base.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the custom base definition from Raby in the adaptable portion of Griffin’s orthodontic treatment device. The motivation for doing so would have been allowing accurate placement of the bracket on the tooth.
Regarding claim 17, Griffin discloses the orthodontic treatment device which is to be manufactured (Griffin, [0032], “3D CAD bracket structure models are processed to generate manufacturing control data for use by the production equipment. For example, where DLP equipment is used to produce the brackets”);
Griffin as modified by Grapsas, Sporbert, Cinader and Raby with the same motivation from claim 5 discloses a portion of the orthodontic treatment device with low tolerances (Raby, [0067], “custom base calculation module 36 may indicate a thickness at one or more custom base portions by generating a thickness map that rendering engine 38 presents to practitioner 14. The thickness map visually indicates the thicknesses of different portions of the custom base”. The custom base is considered low tolerances).
Regarding claim 18, Griffin as modified by Grapsas, Sporbert, Cinader and Raby with the same motivation from claim 5 discloses one base or two or more bases for anchoring the orthodontic treatment device to the patient's mouth (Raby, [0112], “The custom base for bracket 90B is not visible from the labial view shown in display area 114. However, display area 116, which illustrates an occlusal view of tooth 88B, illustrates custom base 102A in addition to the selected tooth 88B and bracket 90B. GUI 110 provides practitioner 14 with an interface for viewing individual teeth 88 of dental arch 86 as well as a custom base 92, 102 that results from a position of a bracket 90 relative to a respective tooth 88”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, III (US 2020/0401104) in view of Grapsas (US 2018/0267509), as applied to claim 7, in further view of Mahdavi et al. (US 2012/0281013).
Regarding claim 8, Griffin as modified by Grapsas with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses the predefined virtual objects (Grapsas, [0059], “user interface for the CAD system in which a wire template is used to define a wire”);
Griffin as modified by Grapsas does not expressly disclose “the shape is not adaptable”;
Mahdevi et al. (hereinafter Mahdevi) discloses a shape of a virtual object is not adaptable (Mahdevi, [0042], “The ability to lock certain parts of a design advantageously enables the original designer to retain the functionality of the object, and to retain the aesthetics of the object”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a shape-locking function from Mahdevi to lock a virtual object into the defined shape of the virtual object of Griffin. The motivation for doing so would have been preventing accidental changes during manipulation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, III (US 2020/0401104) in view of Grapsas (US 2018/0267509), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Levin et al. (US 2019/0333622).
Regarding claim 13, Griffin as modified by Grapsas with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses virtually attaching the predefined virtual orthodontic treatment device to the virtual model of the patient's teeth (Grapsas, [0067], “FIG. 14 illustrates the CAD system user interface 910 after a wire 1400 has been generated from a template and fit to the solid model 930”); the use of the adapted virtual orthodontic treatment device (Grapsas, [0068], “Each wire segment can be edited by clicking on the wire to access a segment editing menu 1450. The menu 1450 includes options by which the user may edit the segment or the adjacent segments”);
Griffin as modified by Grapsas does not expressly disclose “simulating an orthodontic treatment”;
Levin et al. (hereinafter Levin) discloses simulating an orthodontic treatment (Levin, [0139], “simulating execution of the orthodontic treatment planning instructions in the orthodontic treatment planning instructions and either a “test case” of patient dental information, or using actual patient dental information, such as a digital model of the patient's teeth. The user (e.g., dental professional) may view the orthodontic treatment plan and may modify the treatment template based on the resulting orthodontic treatment plan(s), until the user is satisfied”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Levin’s orthodontic treatment simulation to view the resulting outcome of Griffin as modified by Grapsas’s virtual orthodontic objects. The motivation for doing so would have been enabling the visualization of predicted tooth movement overtime before placing the orthodontic appliance.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, III (US 2020/0401104) in view of Grapsas (US 2018/0267509), as applied to claim 1, in view of Raby et al. (US 2009/0017410) in further view of Knopp et al. (US 2004/0229183).
Regarding claim 19, Griffin as modified by Grapsas and Raby with the same motivation from claim 5 discloses mesial-distal plane (Raby, [0114], “adjust a mesial-distal position of one of brackets 90 by selecting the bracket and dragging the selected bracket in the mesial direction or distal direction”);
Griffin as modified by Grapsas and Raby does not expressly disclose “not to be adapted in a buccal-lingual plane”;
Knopp et al. (hereinafter Knopp) discloses not to be adapted in a buccal-lingual plane (Knopp, [0072], “a polar attachment has two or more ends that have a fixed spatial or planar relationship between the buccal and lingual portions”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Knopp’s fixed spatial or planar relationship between the buccal and lingual portions to define virtual orthodontic treatment devices of Griffin. The motivation for doing so would have been ensuring that certain areas remain unchanged.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, III (US 2020/0401104) in view of Grapsas (US 2018/0267509) in view of Sporbert et al. (US 2010/0106465).
Regarding claim 20, Griffin discloses a computing system (Griffin, [0025], “FIG. 7 is an exemplary block diagram of an embodiment of a computer system”) comprising
modules (Griffin, [0061], “Multi-processor computing involves performing computing using more than one processor. Multi-tasking computing involves performing computing using more than one operating system task”);
a non-volatile memory having stored therein virtual orthodontic treatment devices (Griffin, [0059], “memory 708 may include dentition data measurement routines 712, 3D CAD teeth model construction routines 714, 3D CAD teeth model editing routines 716, bracket design routines 718, manufacturing control data generation routines 720, and operating system 722”);
Griffin as modified by Grapsas with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses predefined virtual orthodontic treatment devices (Grapsas, [0059], “user interface for the CAD system in which a wire template is used to define a wire”)
Griffin as modified by Grapsas and Sporbert with the same motivation from claim 2 discloses a library (Sporbert, [0084], “The digital models of the brackets, arch wires and other orthodontic appliances can be stored in the workstation storage in the form of libraries”).
The remaining limitations are similar in scope to the method recited in claim 1 and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ZHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3740. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. 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.
/KYLE ZHAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611