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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 9/3/2024. A filing date 9/3/2024 is acknowledged. The sought benefit of KR application 10-2-23-0117524 (which was filed on 9/5/2023) is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 are pending in this application. Claim 1 is independent claim.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kevin Aminzadeh (US Publication 20260053603), and in view of Sung Hoon Lee et al (US Publication 20230404708 A1, hereinafter Lee)
As for independent claim 1, Aminzadeh discloses: A manufacturing method of a retainer (Abstract, Methods, systems, and techniques for collecting data for use in designing a personalized dental prosthesis for a patient) provided with a body part which has a curved shape along a teeth arrangement ([0049], determining a maxillary tissue line from an intraoral scan of the patient as a most inferior position of tissue along a maxillary arch of the patient) and which has a first side configured to be in contact with a teeth surface of a plurality of teeth forming the teeth arrangement so as to support the teeth arrangement ([0002], proposing an ideal design for provisional and final prostheses whether on teeth or implants that allows for proper esthetics, phonetics, hygiene, and occlusion), the manufacturing method comprising: a process of acquiring three-dimensional scanning data of the teeth arrangement by using a three-dimensional scanning device ([0029], a three-dimensional position for the teeth within the jaw); a data processing process in which processing line data defining a laser cutting shape for manufacturing the body part are generated on the basis of the teeth arrangement on the scanning data ([0061], using the at least one trained machine learning model to digitally modify the prosthesis to accommodate temporary copings or modify the shape of the prosthesis to conform with the shape of the multi-unit abutment in correct relation to the tooth position and any other multi-unit abutments); and a laser cutting process in which a body forming part configuring the body part is manufactured by laser cutting a base material formed of a shape memory alloy material on the basis of the generated processing line data ([0081], The computer uses the planned final prosthesis type to calculate pre-set minimum size parameters for the prosthesis and the position, size, shape, and contour of the final prosthesis), wherein the data processing process comprises: a plurality of tangential lines formation process in which a plurality of tangential lines that extends along the teeth surface of the teeth arrangement at different heights is formed ([0193], The computer determines the distal border of the prosthesis as a line drawn tangential from the distal height of contour surface of the last tooth extending from the mandibular occlusal plane to the mandibular prosthetic plane);
a tangential line collection process in which a tangential line group body is generated by disposing the plurality of tangential lines on a same plane ([0166], The computer then places a plane on the CBCT scan image with the anterior portion of the plane being a line that is drawn from the distal incisal edge of the right upper central incisor to the distal incisal edge of the left upper central incisor and that is parallel to the patient's right and left ala-tragus lines); and a processing line generation process in which a first processing line formed by connecting, to each other, tangential line portions in the tangential line group body that are positioned furthest from a side where the teeth arrangement is positioned and a second processing line that is spaced apart from the first processing line toward a direction away from the side where the teeth arrangement is positioned so as to define a front-to-rear surface of the body forming part are generated ([0195] 10. The computer determines a plane joining the inferior aspect of the cylinders extending from the mandibular prosthetic plane to form the “mandibular implant platform plane”. [0196] 11. The computer determines the thickness of bone that the mandibular implant platform plane intersects by outlining the buccal and lingual bone lines. [0197] 12. Based on the measured distance of the thickness of bone at the mandibular implant platform plane and the user's indicated preferred implant, an implant platform size is chosen that allows at least 2 mm of bone buccal to the buccal aspect of the mandibular implant platform plane. [0198] 13. The computer draws a series of planes that are parallel to the mandibular implant platform plane, with each subsequent plane being 1 mm inferior to the immediately preceding plane, and the final plane being one plane through the inferior border of the mandible. This series of planes are the “implant planes”).
Aminzadeh discloses processing tangential line but does not clearly disclose tangential line portions in the tangential line group body, in an analogous art of designing and optimizing archline, Lee discloses: a processing line generation process in which a first processing line formed by connecting, to each other, tangential line portions in the tangential line group body that are positioned furthest from a side where the teeth arrangement is positioned and a second processing line that is spaced apart from the first processing line toward a direction away from the side where the teeth arrangement is positioned so as to define a front-to-rear surface of the body forming part are generated (Lee: [0020], At least some of the at least two points constituting the arc may include a side point generated at an intersection between a line passing through a contour point of a molar tooth among the teeth and tangent to the contour of the molar tooth and a line horizontal to the rearmost contour point of the molar tooth; [0077], The data processing may use a boundary box surrounding the teeth or a tangential line extending from a specific position of a predetermined tooth; [0090], at least some of the points may be generated at an intersection between a line passing through the contour point of the molar tooth among the teeth and tangent to the contour of the molar tooth and a line horizontal to the rearmost contour point of the molar tooth. More specifically, the side point among the points may be generated at a line tangent to the contour of the molar tooth and a line horizontal to the rearmost contour point of the molar tooth; [0091], the slope of a second line 12 passing through the contour point of the molar tooth and tangent to the contour of the molar tooth may be the same as the slope of the initial archline 200 at the tooth #1 contour point Pa. At this time, the tooth #1 contour point Pa corresponds to the contour point P21 of the molar tooth; [0092], A third line 13 may be formed to pass through the rearmost contour point P22 and tangent to the contour of tooth #1 301. For example, the third line 13 may be formed parallel to one corner of the boundary box enclosing tooth #1 301 and passing through the rearmost contour point P22);
Aminzadeh and Lee are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, designing and personalizing dental arch-shaped device using 3D scanning data . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Aminzadeh using the teachings of Lee to include using a plurality of tangential lines . It would provide Aminzadeh’s method with enhanced capabilities of optimizing the design of dental treatment device.
As for claim 2, Aminzadeh-Lee discloses: wherein, in the plurality of tangential lines formation process, a plurality of planes which traverses the teeth arrangement and which is spaced vertically apart from each other is generated, and the plurality of tangential lines is generated by extracting a contact surface between the teeth surface of the teeth arrangement and the plurality of planes (Lee: [0020], At least some of the at least two points constituting the arc may include a side point generated at an intersection between a line passing through a contour point of a molar tooth among the teeth and tangent to the contour of the molar tooth and a line horizontal to the rearmost contour point of the molar tooth; [0077], The data processing may use a boundary box surrounding the teeth or a tangential line extending from a specific position of a predetermined tooth; [0090], at least some of the points may be generated at an intersection between a line passing through the contour point of the molar tooth among the teeth and tangent to the contour of the molar tooth and a line horizontal to the rearmost contour point of the molar tooth. More specifically, the side point among the points may be generated at a line tangent to the contour of the molar tooth and a line horizontal to the rearmost contour point of the molar tooth; [0091], the slope of a second line 12 passing through the contour point of the molar tooth and tangent to the contour of the molar tooth may be the same as the slope of the initial archline 200 at the tooth #1 contour point Pa. At this time, the tooth #1 contour point Pa corresponds to the contour point P21 of the molar tooth; [0092], A third line 13 may be formed to pass through the rearmost contour point P22 and tangent to the contour of tooth #1 301. For example, the third line 13 may be formed parallel to one corner of the boundary box enclosing tooth #1 301 and passing through the rearmost contour point P22).
As for claim 3, Aminzadeh-Lee discloses: wherein, in the plurality of tangential lines formation process, the plurality of tangential lines is generated within a range of a vertical height of the body part that is required (Aminzadeh: [0047], determining the lingual border as a surface extending from a height of contour of a lingual side of the maxillary teeth to the maxillary prosthetic plane).
As for claim 4, Aminzadeh-Lee discloses: an upper tangential line in contact with the teeth surface of the teeth arrangement at a height corresponding to an upper end of a virtual body part; a lower tangential line in contact with the teeth surface of the teeth arrangement at a height corresponding to a lower end of the virtual body part; and a middle tangential line in contact with the teeth surface of the teeth arrangement at a height between the upper tangential line and the lower tangential line (Lee: [0067], a tooth with a relatively low height and located inside the oral cavity can be distinguished as a molar tooth, and a tooth with a relatively high height and located on the outer front surface of the oral cavity can be distinguished as an incisor (front tooth). In addition, a premolar tooth, a canine, etc. can be individually distinguished).
As for claim 5, Aminzadeh-Lee discloses: wherein the middle tangential line is formed as a plurality of middle tangential lines spaced vertically apart from each other at a height between the upper tangential line and the lower tangential line (Lee: [0067], a tooth with a relatively low height and located inside the oral cavity can be distinguished as a molar tooth, and a tooth with a relatively high height and located on the outer front surface of the oral cavity can be distinguished as an incisor (front tooth). In addition, a premolar tooth, a canine, etc. can be individually distinguished).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Li (US Publication 20240177397) GENERATION OF DENTAL RENDERINGS FROM MODEL DATA
Jo (US Publication 20190090985) RETAINER AND METHOD FOR PRODUCTION THEREOF
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights