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 .
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 (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 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 1-3, 6, 10, 15-21, 24, 28, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,807,999 B2 to Kuo et al (hereinafter ‘Kuo’) in view of US 8,126,726 B2 to Matov et al (hereinafter ‘Matov’).
Regarding claim 1, Kuo discloses a method for preparing a tooth of a patient (column 13, lines 58-62, wherein the treatment plans could also be used to create preparation guides or templates to help in the restorative aspect of tooth preparation, temporary restoration creation and creation of virtual wax-ups and possible final veneers), the system comprising: building a model of a dentition of the patient including a model of an initial shape of a tooth (column 8, lines 48-50 and 54-56, wherein the reference to FIG. 9, a computer-generated, three-dimensional, virtual model of the patient's dentition in the beginning configuration is created, as shown at step S10, and wherein the virtual model may be generated prior to any tooth preparation, so that the model represents the patient's dentition in a pretreatment state); determining a final prepared shape of the tooth (column 9, lines 2-6, wherein the virtual model of the intermediate configuration may be transformed using virtual prosthodontia to create a computer-generated, three-dimensional, virtual model of the patient's dentition in a desired final configuration, as shown at step S14); identifying material to be removed from the tooth to prepare the tooth for receiving a prosthetic; (column 11, lines 34-37, wherein in step S26, the evaluation step may focus on the total volume of tooth structure removed in order to reach the final configuration. The evaluation may be based on, for example, a desired threshold of the total volume of tooth structure.); generating a treatment plan comprising a plurality of steps to modify the initial shape of the tooth to the final prepared shape of the tooth (column 12, lines 30-32, wherein the dental professional may then map out the orthodontic and prosthodontic treatment plans based upon the beginning, intermediate and final configurations, as the steps, as shown at step S30.); and rendering visualizations for the plurality of material removal steps of the treatment plan, the visualizations depicting the removal of tooth material to modify the initial shape of the tooth to the final prepared shape of the tooth (column 12, lines 16-24, wherein the ability to virtually iterate the preparation specifications as applied to the virtual beginning model of the dentition as provided in steps S12 and S14 provides the dental professional the ability to modify the preparation design prior to any actual moving or cutting of the teeth. In addition, the dental professional may also visualize the impact of the preparation to the actual tooth, for example, in terms of volume of tooth material removed, the different areas of tooth affected, and the depth of the preparation). While Kuo discloses considerations of minimum constraints, in column 11, line 64 through column 12, line 15, wherein in the step S26 the dental professional may superimpose the modified models to determine the impact of the modifications on the volume of tooth structure that extends outward from the intersection boundaries. The dental professional may continue to modify the virtual representations of the tooth structures in both the virtual orthodontic plan and virtual restorative goal models until the dental professional has iteratively arrived at an acceptable preparation design that provides for a desired threshold value of the parameters of interest, the threshold value represents either a maximum, or if appropriate, a minimum condition that the dental professional determines is an acceptable variation to any given restorative parameter. For example, the dental professional may set a threshold value that represents the maximum amount of the total volume of the tooth structure to be removed to create the final tooth configuration. A threshold value may also be, for example, the maximum amount of time available for treatment or the maximum thickness of a veneer to be placed on a tooth. Therefore, minimum thickness consideration is obvious in view of the Kuo’s disclosure. In as much as Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s assessment, Matov discloses a minimum thickness of the prosthetic is used as a constraint when identifying the material for removal and determining the final prepared shape of the tooth (column 16, lines 4-9, wherein constraints can be defined with reference to a variety of further considerations, such as manufacturability. For example, constraints can be defined to set a maximum or minimum thickness of the aligner material, as the prosthetic, or to set a maximum or minimum coverage of the aligner over the crowns of the teeth). Kuo and Matov are combinable because they both disclose dental image processing. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the minimum thickness constraint of the prosthetic, of Matov’s method with Kuo’s so that to provide variety of further considerations, such as manufacturability (column 16, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 2, in the combination of Kuo and Matov, Kuo discloses wherein identifying material to be removed includes identifying material to be removed to provide an unobstructed insertion path for the prosthetic (column 10, lines 59-61, wherein clearances, as unobstruction, between teeth surfaces and the preparation guide may be measured to verify that the desired amounts of tooth surface have been removed).
Regarding claim 3, in the combination of Kuo and Matov, Kuo discloses wherein identifying material to be removed is based on a location and shape of an adjacent tooth (column 16, lines 53-55, wherein the swept volume may need to be modified to assure that the swept volume of the tooth does not intersect the swept volume of a neighboring tooth or veneer.).
Regarding claim 6, in the combination of Kuo and Matov, Matov discloses wherein identifying material to be removed includes modeling of occlusion contacts and interaction of the prosthetic with teeth of an opposing jaw during natural occlusion to identify material to be removed and interaction of the prosthetic with teeth of an opposing jaw during natural occlusion (column 40, lines 5-16, wherein the automatic computation of dental measurements (3006) in further embodiments may comprise the automatic computation of bite characteristics including, for example, occlusal contacts and occlusal relationship along arch. More specifically, occlusal contact characteristics of mandibular premolar or molar are the set of distances of the buccal cusps to the central groove (occlusal surface) of the opposing tooth. Occlusal contact characteristics of maxillary premolar or molar are the set of distances of the lingual cusps to the central groove (occlusal surface) of the opposing tooth, and occlusal contact characteristics of mandibular anterior teeth (incisors and canines) are the distances from the ridges to occlusal surface of opposing anterior teeth.).
Regarding claim 10, in the combination of Kuo and Matov, Matov discloses wherein the treatment plan further comprises one or more orthodontic movement steps comprising translation and/or rotation of one or more teeth (column 4, line 63 through column 5, line 5, wherein the result of the data mining system of FIG. 1A is used for defining appliance configurations or changes to appliance configurations for incrementally moving teeth. The tooth movements will be those normally associated with orthodontic treatment, including translation in all three orthogonal directions, rotation of the tooth centerline in the two orthogonal directions with rotational axes perpendicular to a vertical centerline ("root angulation" and "torque"), as well as rotation of the tooth centerline in the orthodontic direction with an axis parallel to the vertical centerline ("pure rotation").).
Regarding claim 15, in the combination of Kuo and Matov, Kuo discloses further comprising determine the material removed for each step of the treatment plan (column 11, lines 34-36, wherein in step S26, the evaluation step may focus on the total volume of tooth structure removed in order to reach the final configuration).
Regarding claim 16, in the combination of Kuo and Matov, Kuo further discloses the instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the system to: reimage a patient's dentition after removing a portion of material according to a step of the treatment plan to build an updated model of a dentition including an updated model of the patient's tooth (column 9, lines 2-9 and Fig. 11, wherein the virtual model of the intermediate configuration may be transformed using virtual prosthodontia to create a computer-generated, three-dimensional, virtual model of the patient's dentition in a desired final configuration, as shown at step S14. The virtual prosthodontics may include one or more modifications of the virtual model, as updated model, such as tooth mass removal or build-up and/or the placement of one or more dental restorations.); compare the updated model of a dentition with a model of the dentition for the step of the treatment plan (column 10, lines 47-50, wherein when removing tooth material to accommodate a dental restoration, generally 1 mm of tooth material is removed to ensure adequate restoration strength and desired aesthetics, inherently as comparing the model outcome); and highlight remaining material that should be removed according to the step of the treatment plan (column 15, lines 31-36, wherein the dental professional simply cuts or grinds down any portions of the tooth 20 that extend beyond the overlay 30. The overlay 30 thus not only highlights the portions of the tooth 20 to be removed, but it also shields portions of the tooth 20 that are not to be removed).
Regarding claim 17, in the combination of Kuo and Jonsson, Kuo further discloses further comprising receive constraints on the final prepared shape of the tooth (column 17, lines 57-60, wherein during the initial consultation, the dental professional and the patient may discuss the patient's treatment goal(s) and any constraints that might limit the time available for treatment.); and generate a plurality suggested final prepared shapes of the tooth based on the constraints (column 17, lines 60-65, wherein the patient may desire to have his or her smile enhanced, but has only a six-month window of opportunity for treatment. In this situation, the timeframe for treatment is limited, and an appropriate orthodontic/prosthodontic treatment plan must be set to fit within the timeframe, as suggested final preparation within the constraint).
Regarding claim 18, in the combination of Kuo and Jonsson, Kuo further discloses further comprising receive a selection of the final prepared shape from the plurality of suggested final prepared shapes, and wherein determining the final prepared shape of the tooth is based on the received selection of the final prepared shape (column 9, lines 2-14, wherein the virtual model of the intermediate configuration may be transformed using virtual prosthodontia to create a computer-generated, three-dimensional, virtual model of the patient's dentition in a desired final configuration, as selected, as shown at step S14. The virtual prosthodontics may include one or more modifications of the virtual model, such as tooth mass removal or build-up and/or the placement of one or more dental restorations. Those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that steps S12 and S14 may be performed in any order, and may even be performed simultaneously. In addition, steps S12 and S14 may be iterated upon. During each iterative step, the final model may be evaluated and iterated again or finalized into a treatment plan, as selections in view of the modifications).
Regarding claim 19, Kuo discloses a system for aiding in preparing a tooth of a patient, the system comprising: one or more processors and memory, wherein the memory comprises instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the system (column 4, lines 6-11, wherein methods described herein may be implemented by a series of computer-executable instructions residing on or carried by a suitable computer-readable medium. Suitable computer-readable media may include volatile memory (e.g., RAM) and/or non-volatile memory (e.g., ROM, disk).) to: Please refer to the corresponding method claim 1 above for further teachings.
Regarding system claims 20, 21, 24, 28, 33 and 34 please refer to corresponding method claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 15 and 16, respectively.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 11-13, 22, 23, 25 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Matov and further in view of US 9,433,476 B2 to Khardekar et al (hereinafter ‘Khardekar’).
Regarding claims 4 and 22, Kuo and Matov do not specifically disclose the method further comprising: identifying material to be removed from the adjacent tooth to provide an unobstructed insertion path for the prosthetic. Khardekar discloses identifying material to be removed from the adjacent tooth to provide an unobstructed insertion path for the prosthetic (column 3, line 58 through column4, line 2, wherein a first tooth 101 and a second tooth 102, as adjacent, can be identified in the digital dental model 100 with an overlap 103 in a target position in a treatment plan. An overlap 103 can include an overlap with a neighboring tooth 102 along an arch of the target digital dental model 104 and a potential collision in the target position with a neighboring tooth 102, among many others. An overlap 103 that can be remedied through IPR can be approximately 0.50 millimeters, for example. For instance, in such an example, approximately 0.25 millimeters of the first tooth 101 and 0.25 millimeters of the second tooth 102 can be removed via an IPR procedure.). Kuo, Matov and Khardekar are combinable because they all disclose dental image processing. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the identifying material to be removed from the adjacent tooth to provide an unobstructed insertion path for the prosthetic, of Khardekar’s method with Kuo’s and Matov’s so that to remedy overlap of the teeth (column 16, lines 64-65).
Regarding claims 5 and 23, Kuo and Matov do not specifically disclose wherein identifying material to be removed includes modeling of interproximal contacts and interaction of the prosthetic with adjacent teeth to identify material to be removed and interaction of the prosthetic with adjacent teeth. Khardekar discloses identifying material to be removed includes modeling of interproximal contacts and interaction of the prosthetic with adjacent teeth to identify material to be removed and interaction of the prosthetic with adjacent teeth (column 1, lines 31-34, wherein the removal of material causing the overlap of the crowded teeth must be treated by the treatment professional by removing material from the surface of one or more teeth in a process called interproximal reduction (IPR)). Kuo, Matov and Khardekar are combinable because they all disclose dental image processing. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine identifying material to be removed includes modeling of interproximal contacts and interaction of the prosthetic with adjacent teeth to identify material to be removed and interaction of the prosthetic with adjacent teeth, of Khardekar’s method with Kuo’s and Matov’s so that to remedy overlap of the teeth (column 16, lines 64-65).
Regarding claims 7 and 25, Kuo and Matov do not specifically disclose wherein identifying material to be removed includes evaluating a thickness of enamel of one or more teeth in the dentition depicted in the model. Khardekar discloses identifying material to be removed includes evaluating a thickness of enamel of one or more teeth in the dentition depicted in the model (column 1, lines 35-37, wherein during an IPR procedure, a small amount of enamel thickness on the surface of the teeth is removed to reduce the mesial-distal width and space requirements for the tooth). Kuo, Matov and Khardekar are combinable because they all disclose dental image processing. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine identifying material to be removed includes modeling of interproximal contacts and interaction of the prosthetic with adjacent teeth to identify material to be removed and interaction of the prosthetic with adjacent teeth, of Khardekar’s method with Kuo’s and Matov’s in order to reduce the mesial-distal width and space requirements for the tooth (column 1, lines 37-38).
Regarding claims 11 and 29, Kuo and Matov do not specifically disclose wherein identifying material to be removed includes identifying locations for interproximal reduction of the one or more teeth to provide space for the translation and/or rotation of the one or more teeth. Khardekar discloses identifying material to be removed includes identifying locations for interproximal reduction of the one or more teeth to provide space for the translation and/or rotation of the one or more teeth (column 3, lines 9-16, wherein with the use of computer device executable instructions, a treatment professional can establish a treatment plan having a target position for a number of teeth of a particular patient. With this target position, as the location, in mind, a first tooth and a second tooth needing IPR, as interproximal reduction, can be identified and IPR can be virtually planned at a point during the process of moving the teeth to the target position that is desirable for performing IPR). Kuo, Matov and Khardekar are combinable because they all disclose dental image processing. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine identifying material to be removed includes modeling of interproximal contacts and interaction of the prosthetic with adjacent teeth to identify material to be removed and interaction of the prosthetic with adjacent teeth, of Khardekar’s method with Kuo’s and Matov’s in order to determine the target position that is desirable for performing IPR (column 3, lines 15-16).
Regarding claims 12 and 30, in the combination of Kuo, Matov and Khardekar, Khardekar discloses wherein the treatment plan includes an amount and location of the interproximal reduction (column 3, line 58 through column 4, line 4, wherein a first tooth 101 and a second tooth 102 can be identified in the digital dental model 100 with an overlap 103, as the location, in a target position in a treatment plan. An overlap 103 can include an overlap with a neighboring tooth 102 along an arch of the target digital dental model 104 and a potential collision in the target position with a neighboring tooth 102, among many others. An overlap 103 that can be remedied through IPR can be approximately 0.50 millimeters, for example. For instance, in such an example, approximately 0.25 millimeters of the first tooth 101 and 0.25 millimeters of the second tooth 102 can be removed via an IPR procedure. In some IPR procedures, the amount of tooth material removed can be different for two adjacent teeth (e.g., 0.25 mm and 0.15 mm)).
Regarding claims 13 and 31, in the combination of Kuo, Matov and Khardekar, Khardekar wherein determining the amount of interproximal reduction includes determining a thickness of an enamel depicted in two-dimensional or three-dimensional imagery to select candidates for interproximal reduction such that the remaining enamel in each tooth is clinically acceptable (column 1, lines 31-37, wherein the removal of material causing the overlap of the crowded teeth must be treated by the treatment professional by removing material from the surface of one or more teeth in a process called interproximal reduction (IPR). During an IPR procedure, a small amount of enamel thickness, inherently as the acceptable amount, on the surface of the teeth is removed to reduce the mesial-distal width and space requirements for the tooth).
Claims 8, 9, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo and Matov and further in view of US 9138299 B2 to Van Lierde et al (hereinafter ‘Van Lierde’).
Regarding claims 8 and 26, Kuo and Matov do not specifically disclose wherein the model includes a volumetric model including tooth pulp as an internal structure of one or more teeth of the dentition of the patient. Van Lierde discloses the model includes a volumetric model including tooth pulp as an internal structure of one or more teeth of the dentition of the patient (column 3, lines 4-10, wherein the acquired information is used to create a 3D computer model of the tooth, including its internal architecture i.e. root canals and pulp chamber. The computer model may be visualized on any form of display device such as a computer screen, a projected display, a head mounted display, in sectional views or in a 3D representation such as a surface model or a volume rendering). Kuo, Matov and Van Lierde are combinable because they all disclose dental image processing. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the model includes a volumetric model including tooth pulp as an internal structure of one or more teeth of the dentition of the patient, of Van Lierde’s method with Kuo’s and Matov’s in order to control the grinding process (column 7, line 12).
Regarding claims 9 and 27, in the combination of Kuo, Matov and Van Lierde, Van Lierde discloses wherein the internal structure with the pulp is a constraint in identifying the material for removal (column 7, lines 7-15, wherein the preparation marginal edge (47) of the tooth stump (44) must have a certain profile allowing the smooth transition (i.e. the emergence profile) from the crown (43) to the root (48). Additionally, the stump (44) must be ground down evenly (often more or less conically). This grinding process however must be controlled because of minimum thickness (D) requirements between the surface (49) of the tooth stump (44) and the pulp chamber (2)).
Claims 14 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo and Matov and further in view of US 2015/0305830 A1 to Howard et al (hereinafter ‘Howard’).
Regarding claims 14 and 32, Kuo and Matov do not specifically disclose wherein the instructions to build the model of the dentition of the patient includes instructions to: build a three-dimensional surface model of the patient's dentition from a three-dimensional surface scan of the patient's dentition; build a volumetric model from an infrared scan of an internal structure of the patient's dentition; and build a composite model from the three-dimensional surface model and the volumetric model. Howard discloses building the model of the dentition of the patient comprises: building a three-dimensional surface model of the patient's dentition from a three-dimensional surface scan of the patient's dentition (Para [0096], wherein three dimensional ("3D") digital or virtual teeth models are created from--data obtained through scanning the dentition of an orthodontic patient.); building a volumetric model from a scan of an internal structure of the patient's dentition (Para [0076], wherein FIG. 8 shows the 3D model 160 of FIG. 7 with gingiva 170. Gingiva model was also obtained during the teeth scanning process, wherein the image includes internal structure of the dentition); and building a composite model from the three-dimensional surface model and the volumetric model (Para [0077], wherein FIG. 9 shows the 3D composite model 180 created using a 3D printing apparatus from the 3D model of FIG. 8). Kuo, Matov and Howard are combinable because they all disclose dental image processing. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the building a composite model from the three-dimensional surface model and the volumetric model, of Howard’s method with Kuo’s and Matov’s in order to generate a virtual model of the teeth in the desired position (Para[0005]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-05:00 PST.
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, Sue Lefkowitz can be reached on (571)272-3638. 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.
/SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights