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) submitted on 09/24/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 18 describe a computer program product.
Further, Applicant's specification, at paragraph [200-201], fails to explicitly define the scope of computer program product to exclude transitory signals (e.g., ¶ [201] recites data can be retrieved from internet, local area network). Thus, in giving the term its plain meaning (see MPEP 2111.01), the claimed computer program product is considered to include data signals per se. Data signals per se are not statutory as they fail to fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
As an additional note, a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable programming instructions stored thereon is considered statutory as non-transitory computer readable media excludes data signals (data signals are transitory computer readable media).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0035538, “Marshall”, hereinafter) in view of Romanov et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0008883, “Romanov”).
As per claim 1, Marshall teaches a computer-implemented method for adjusting an arrangement of a plurality of three-dimensional digital tooth models for a dental restoration (¶ [3] and [30]), the method comprising:
receiving a three-dimensional digital denture model comprising the plurality of the three-dimensional digital tooth models (¶ [9], further referring to ¶ [196] for plurality of tooth models, each represent a single tooth), the three-dimensional digital denture model defining the arrangement of the plurality of three-dimensional digital tooth models for the dental restoration (as recited above referring to ¶ [3] and [30]),
receiving a first input selecting at least one of the three-dimensional digital tooth models (¶ [17], user input indicating selection of at least one tooth represented by the digital dental model),
pairing the selected three-dimensional digital tooth model with a corresponding three-dimensional digital tooth model of the three-dimensional digital tooth models (addressed below),
receiving a second input defining a modification of the selected tooth model (¶ [17], selecting tooth as a movable tooth),
performing a first calculation of a first adjustment of a geometric form of the selected tooth model based on the second input, wherein the first adjustment is calculated according to a local coordinate system of the selected tooth model (¶ [17], performing coordinate translation, rotation, etc. See also ¶ [212]),
applying the calculated first adjustment to the selected tooth model (¶ [214-215]),
performing a second calculation of a mapped adjustment of the geometric form of the paired corresponding tooth model based on the second input or the first calculation, wherein the mapped adjustment is based on a replica of the first adjustment adjusted relative to a local coordinate system of the paired corresponding tooth model,
applying the calculated mapped adjustment to the paired corresponding tooth model (addressed below with reference to Romanov),
providing the resulting adjusted three-dimensional digital denture model for manufacturing the dental restoration (Fig. 9, step 916, ¶ [185-186]).
Marshall does not expressly teach pairing the selected three-dimensional digital tooth model with a corresponding three-dimensional digital tooth model of the three-dimensional digital tooth models, and performing a second calculation of a mapped adjustment of the geometric form of the paired corresponding tooth model based on the second input or the first calculation, wherein the mapped adjustment is based on a replica of the first adjustment adjusted relative to a local coordinate system of the paired corresponding tooth model,
applying the calculated mapped adjustment to the paired corresponding tooth model.
However, in a very similar method of dental restoration (see Fig. 11), Romanov teaches the above features, i.e., pairing the selected three-dimensional digital tooth model with a corresponding three-dimensional digital tooth model of the three-dimensional digital tooth models (step 1106, ¶ [125], by matching the selected tooth of the model to the one in the previous model data), and performing a second calculation of a mapped adjustment of the geometric form of the paired corresponding tooth model based on the second input or the first calculation (calculation after performing the geometric transformation described in ¶ [20], and Fig. 11, step 1108, ¶ [126]), wherein the mapped adjustment is based on a replica of the first adjustment (Fig. 15, ¶ [172], based on the copy of the modification) adjusted relative to a local coordinate system of the paired corresponding tooth model (applied to the teachings of Marshall addressed above), applying the calculated mapped adjustment to the paired corresponding tooth model (Fig. 16, step 1611, ¶ [174]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method as taught by Romanov to the method as taught by Marshall as addressed above, the advantage of which is to improve dentatl treatment planning (¶ [6]).
As per claim 2, the combined teachings of Marshall and Romanov impliedly include the second calculation being based on the second input, and wherein the calculated first adjustment and the calculated mapped adjustment are applied simultaneously and/or computed simultaneously (see Romanov, Fig. 16, steps 1605, 1607, and 1609, in parallel). Thus, claim 2 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
As per claim 3, the combined Marshall-Romanov the selected tooth model being a model of a specific dental type, the paired corresponding tooth model being a model of the same specific dental type, the specific dental type being one of the following: incisors (Marshall, ¶ [150]), canines, premolars, and molars (Marshall, ¶ [172]).
As per claim 4, the combined Marshall-Romanov substantially teach the paired corresponding tooth model being a contralateral counterpart of the selected tooth model or an antagonist of the selected tooth model (at best understood by the examiner as matching the selected tooth model with the previous tooth model addressed above).
As per claim 5, the combined Marshall-Romanov also teaches the local coordinate systems of the selected tooth model and the paired corresponding tooth model being orthogonal coordinate systems, in particular defined by respective axes corresponding to mesial, buccal, and occlusal directions of the tooth models (see Marshall, ¶ [212]).
As per claim 6, the combined Marshall-Romanov does also teach the first adjustment and the mapped adjustment including one or more of the following types of adjustment: translation, rotation, scaling, deformation, and altering of a surface topology (Marshall, ¶ [17]).
As per claim 7, the combined Marshall-Romanov does impliedly teach calculating the mapped adjustment involving determining a corresponding point on a surface of the paired corresponding tooth model that correlates to a first point on a surface of the selected tooth model where the first adjustment is to be applied, wherein the mapped adjustment is applied at the corresponding point (Romanov, Fig. 2, ¶ [13], i.e., adjusting surface based on the attachment). Thus, claim 7 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
As per claim 8, as addressed above, the combined Marshall-Romanov does teach determining the corresponding point involving a computational technique selected from a group comprising: a ray intersection, a closest point determination, an interpolation, a surface mapping algorithm (see claims 1 and 7), and a three-dimensional coordinate transformation (Marshal, ¶ [17]). Thus, claim 8 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
As per claim 10, the combined Marshall-Romanov substantially teaches the geometric forms being defined by meshes, wherein the adjustments of the geometric forms of the tooth models involve modifications of at least one vertex, edge, or face of the respective meshes (Marshall, Fig. 1, ¶ [77], generated polygonal mesh for the dental model, and thus the modification of the model involving modifying the mesh).
As per claim 11, the combined Marshall-Romanov does also impliedly teach the geometric forms being defined by point clouds, wherein the adjustments of the geometric forms of the tooth models involve changing the position of at least one point of the respective point cloud (Marshall, ¶ [77], because the 3D digital representation of the dental impression created from the 3D scanner can be in the form of point cloud).
As per claim 12, although the combined Marshall-Romanov does not explicitly teach the scale of the paired corresponding tooth model being adjusted to match the scale of the selected tooth model before the second calculation is performed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so since in order for the selected tooth to match the previous tooth model as taught by Romanov as addressed in claim 1 above, the size and shape should also be adjusted, and therefore, scaled accordingly before any geometric transformation.
As per claim 13, the combined Marshall-Romanov further impliedly teach the method further comprising for a set of three-dimensional tooth models, the set of three-dimensional tooth models comprising the selected tooth model, the paired corresponding tooth model (as addressed in claim 1) and remaining three-dimensional tooth models of the plurality of three-dimensional digital tooth models (non-selected teeth addressed below):
performing a third calculation of set adjustments of the geometric forms of the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models, wherein the set adjustments are calculated based on the first and the second calculation, applying the calculated set adjustments to the remaining tooth models (Marshall, ¶ [243], “Therefore, when the motion data is applied to the model, any of the teeth that were not selected (therefore moveable teeth) can be automatically moved out of the way by the computer system to avoid interferences with the fixed teeth and other teeth”).
As per claim 14, the combined Marshall-Romanov does impliedly teach receiving a set choosing input before the first input, the set choosing input defining the set of three-dimensional digital tooth models (Marshall, ¶ [73] and ¶ [79], i.e., using the menu option on the user interface).
As per claim 15, the combined Marshall-Romanov also impliedly teaches the method further comprising: receiving a deactivating input, wherein the deactivating input deactivates one of the remaining tooth models, wherein the set adjustments are not calculated for the deactivated remaining tooth models, and wherein the third calculation is also based on a geometric form of the deactivated remaining tooth model (Marshall, ¶ [243], “…any of the teeth that were not selected (therefore moveable teeth) can be automatically moved out of the way by the computer system to avoid interferences with the fixed teeth and other teeth”).
As per claim 16, the combined Marshall-Romanov further impliedly teaches:
pairing the selected digital tooth model also with an additional three-dimensional digital tooth model of the three-dimensional digital tooth models,
performing a fourth calculation of an additional mapped adjustment of a geometric form of the additional tooth model based on the second input or the first calculation (Marshall, ¶ [243], i.e., calculation for adjustment of the non-selected fixed teeth), wherein the additional mapped adjustment is based on an additional replica of the first adjustment adjusted relative to the local coordinate system of the additional tooth model, applying the calculated additional mapped adjustment to the additional tooth model (taught by Romanov addressed in claim 1 above). Thus, claim 16 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
Claim 18, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, as addressed in claim 1 referring to Fig. 1 of Marshall, the combined Marshall-Romanov impliedly teach the manufacturing system further comprising one or more manufacturing devices configured for manufacturing a dental restoration, execution of the program instructions by the processor further causing the computer device to generate a three-dimensional digital dental restoration model of the dental restoration to be manufactured using the adjusted three-dimensional digital denture model provided for manufacturing the dental restoration, execution of the program instructions by the processor further causing the computer device to control the one or more manufacturing devices to manufacture the dental restoration using the three-dimensional digital dental restoration model as a template, the manufactured dental restoration being a physical copy of the template (Marshall, Fig. 1, ¶ [78] and [80], i.e., by the rapid fabrication machine 119).
Claim 17 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0035538) in view of Romanov et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0008883) further in view of See et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0057983, “See”).
As per claim 17, the combined Marshall-Romanov fails to explicitly teach the local coordinate system of the paired corresponding tooth model and the local coordinate system of the selected tooth model satisfying a mirror symmetry with respect to a mirror plane provided by a sagittal plane dividing the arrangement of the plurality of three-dimensional digital tooth models into two halves or provided by an occlusal plane.
However, this coordinate system is well known in the art. One of which is described in See in similar dental treatment, wherein, as described in ¶ [127-129] referring to Fig. 21 and 22, the method includes the above features.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method as taught by See into the combined method of Marshall and Romanov as addressed above, the advantage of which is to define a tooth coordinate system for a virtual tooth or tooth model (¶ [10]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken singly or in combination does not teach or suggest, a computer-implemented method, among other things, comprising:
…the second input defining a geometric shape, the geometric shape having an orientation and a spatial position in relation to the local coordinate system of the selected tooth model, the second input further defining a modification of the topology within a designated zone of the selected tooth model's surface, the designated zone being defined by the geometric shape, the first point being inside the designated zone, the determining of the corresponding point being based on adjusting the orientation and the spatial position of the geometric shape relative to the coordinate system of the paired corresponding tooth model.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hau H. Nguyen whose telephone number is: 571-272-7787. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI from 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tammy Goddard, can be reached on (571) 272-7773.
The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HAU H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611