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
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 states "comparing the occlusal thickness with the predetermined thickness to reduce an occlusal thickness" There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the occlusal thickness". The claim should be rewritten so that "an occlusal thickness" is defined prior to "the occlusal thickness". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 states “comparing the occlusal thickness with the predetermined thickness to reduce an occlusal thickness”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the occlusal thickness”. The claim should be rewritten so that “an occlusal thickness” is defined prior to “the occlusal thickness”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 states, in part “the second direction is parallel to the occlusal plane and a normal vector direction.” It is unclear what the vector direction is normal to. For examination of prior art, this limitation will be interpreted as “normal to the outer tooth surface”.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as it recites an article of manufacture
comprising one or more computer readable media. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a
claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other
such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer
readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
Page 36 of the applicant’s specification states “The computer readable medium may include a program command, a data file, a data structure, or the like, or a combination thereof. The program commands recorded in the computer readable recording medium may be especially designed and configured for the present disclosure or be known to those skilled in a field of computer software. Examples of the computer readable recording medium may include a magnetic medium such as a hard disk, a floppy disk, or a magnetic tape; an optical medium such as a compact disk read only memory (CD-ROM) or a digital versatile disk (DVD); a magneto-optical medium such as a floptical disk; and a hardware device specially configured to store and execute program commands, such as a ROM, a random access memory (RAM), a flash memory, or the like. Examples of the program commands include high- level language codes capable of being executed by a computer using an interpreter, or the like, as well as machine language codes made by a compiler.
Here, the machine-readable storage medium may be provided in a form of a non-transitory storage medium. Here, the "non-transitory storage medium" means that the storage medium is a tangible device, and does not include a signal (for example, electromagnetic waves), and the term does not distinguish between the case where data is stored semi-permanently on a storage medium and the case where data is temporarily stored thereon. For example, the "non-transitory storage medium" may include a buffer in which data is temporarily stored.” Since the applicant’s disclosure only states that “machine readable storage medium may be provided in a form of a non-transitory storage medium” (emphasis added), it does not limit the computer readable storage medium to be exclusively non-transitory.
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.
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 1-2, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boise Prosthodontics (Occlusal Night Guard Design and Print Using Exocad and Formlabs 2) and 3Shape Training Videos (Working with 3Shape Splint Studio, hereinafter 3Shape).
Regarding claim 1, Boise Prosthodontics teaches A method for processing an image, comprising: receiving at least one intraoral image (@1:22 a patient scan is loaded);
aligning the at least one intraoral image to an occlusal plane (@1:26 Wizard prompts to “Rotate the scan so that you look onto the occlusal side of the teeth”, @1:41 maxilla and mandible are aligned)
PNG
media_image1.png
723
1289
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
376
168
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
865
1054
media_image3.png
Greyscale
setting an outline of the splint based on the at least one intraoral image (@2:54 outline is set approximately halfway down the buccal side of the tooth, @3:14 outline is set 2-3 mm onto the tissue on the lingual side of the scan);
PNG
media_image4.png
745
787
media_image4.png
Greyscale
setting an outer surface of the splint based on the outline (@3:33 shows outer surface of splint going to user designated outline);
PNG
media_image5.png
729
817
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and displaying the at least one intraoral image, to which the splint is applied, generated based on the outer surface (@12:51 displays generated splint applied to oral model).
PNG
media_image6.png
529
734
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Boise Prosthodontics fails to explicitly teach setting an inner surface of a splint based on the at least one aligned intraoral image. In related field of endeavor, 3Shape teaches setting an inner surface of a splint based on the at least one aligned intraoral image (@2:28 “offset from teeth to splint”)
PNG
media_image7.png
435
1320
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have modified Boise Prosthodontics to include setting an inner surface of a splint based on the at least one aligned intraoral image as taught by 3Shape. Doing so would allow the splint to be able to slip on and off despite the friction between the splint and the teeth (3Shape @2:25-2:38)
Regarding claim 2, Boise Prosthodontics as modified by 3Shape teaches the method of claim 1. Boise Prosthodontics further teaches wherein: the step of setting the outer surface includes: generating a crop image including the outline and the inner surface set within the outline (@1:44 “trim any excess”, Wizard shows “Draw lines to mark areas you want to delete/crop”);
PNG
media_image8.png
436
212
media_image8.png
Greyscale
generating a smoothing image by minimizing a surface area of the crop image; flattening the smoothing image to generate a flattened image (@5:50-6:55 user alternates between smoothing and flattening the rendered splint);
PNG
media_image9.png
1479
1977
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
288
201
media_image10.png
Greyscale
dividing a region of the flattened image (@3:47 divides by posterior and anterior area)
PNG
media_image11.png
793
1179
media_image11.png
Greyscale
adjusting the morphing image based on a predetermined thickness (Initial splint thickness is determined by values set @3:36, then @8:10 adds and subtracts material, changing the thickness).
PNG
media_image12.png
442
215
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
1408
2010
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Boise Prosthodontics fails to explicitly teach changing a morphing direction according to the divided region. In related field of endeavor, 3Shape teaches teach changing a morphing direction according to the divided region to generate a morphing image for the flattened image (@3:50 anterior teeth are raised by “ramp angle”, @3:55 posterior teeth are raised by “follow cusps radius”, posterior teeth @5:25 black clouds show only points of front teeth/anterior being moved forward and blue clouds show points of both front/anterior and side/posterior teeth being moved horizontally. Note that Boise Prosthodontics divides by “Posterior Area”)
PNG
media_image14.png
1353
2095
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
1377
2098
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
799
1181
media_image16.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Boise Prosthodontics and 3Shape to include changing a morphing direction according to the divided region as taught by 3Shape. Doing so would automatically adapt the design until the correct behavior has been achieved (3Shape @5:17)
Regarding claim 5, Boise Prosthodontics and 3Shape teach the method of claim 2. Boise Prosthodontics further teaches wherein: the step of setting the outer surface further includes generating an offset image by processing an outer surface offset in a buccal direction and a lingual direction on the flattened image (@3:41 outer surface of the splint is offset from the teeth by “peripheral thickness” in the buccal and lingual direction), and the outer surface offset becomes thinner as it approaches the outline (@3:41 the splint is rounded off as it approaches the outline).
PNG
media_image17.png
803
1167
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Boise Prosthodontists and 3Shape teach the method of claim 5. 3Shape further teaches wherein: the generating of the morphing image includes: setting a plurality of interpolation points according to arrangement on the offset image (@4:10 shows initial points and topography according to arrangement, @5:13 User manually sets points through sculpting, then an articulation step performs interpolation for remaining areas,); and moving the plurality of interpolation points corresponding to an anterior region in a first direction (@5:25 black clouds show points of front/anterior teeth being moved forward), and moving the plurality of interpolation points corresponding to a post region in a second direction different from the first direction (@5:25 blue clouds show points of side/posterior teeth being moved horizontally).
PNG
media_image18.png
656
859
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
799
1181
media_image16.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Boise Prosthodontists and 3Shape to include the generating of the morphing image includes: setting a plurality of interpolation points according to arrangement on the offset image; and moving the plurality of interpolation points corresponding to an anterior region in a first direction, and moving the plurality of interpolation points corresponding to a post region in a second direction different from the first direction as taught by 3Shape. Doing so would automatically adapt the design until the correct behavior has been achieved (3Shape @5:17).
Regarding claim 7, Boise Prosthodontists and 3Shape teach the method of claim 5. 3Shape further teaches wherein: the second direction is parallel to the occlusal plane and a normal vector direction (@5:25 - clouds move perpendicular to bite surface of teeth i.e. parallel to occlusal plane, and normal to the tooth outer surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Boise Prosthodontists and 3Shape to include the second direction is parallel to the occlusal plane and a normal vector direction as taught by 3Shape. Doing so would automatically adapt the design until the correct behavior has been achieved (3Shape @5:17).
Regarding claim 9, Boise Prosthodontists and 3Shape teach the method of claim 5. 3Shape further teaches wherein: the generating of the morphing image includes generating a plurality of image groups that are divided from each other in the offset image (@4:13 shows groups divided by colors, where posterior teeth are blue and anterior teeth are green), and the plurality of interpolation points are arranged to correspond to each of the plurality of image groups (@4:13 shows interpolation points aligned to the divided image groups).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Boise Prosthodontists and 3Shape to include the generating of the morphing image includes generating a plurality of image groups that are divided from each other in the offset image, and the plurality of interpolation points are arranged to correspond to each of the plurality of image groups as taught by 3Shape. Doing so would adjust how the splint is sculpted based on user selection (@3:53)
PNG
media_image18.png
656
859
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Boise Prosthodontics and 3Shape teach the method of claim 2, and Boise Prosthodontics further teaches the adjusting of the morphing image based on the predetermined thickness includes comparing the occlusal thickness with the predetermined thickness to reduce an occlusal thickness of at least a portion of the morphing image (@8:10 adds and removes material from the initial occlusal thickness, reducing the occlusal in at least a portion).
PNG
media_image19.png
701
953
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boise Prosthodontics and 3Shape as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chen et al (US 11896455 B2, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 3, Boise Prosthodontics and 3Shape teach the method of claim 2, but fail to explicitly teach wherein: the generating of the smoothing image includes performing a Laplacian-smoothing operation on the crop image. In related field of endeavor, Chen teaches generating of the smoothing image includes performing a Laplacian-smoothing operation on the crop image (Col 15 Line 20-26 “ Thus, the 3D mesh including the initial patch (e.g., triangles 1310, 1310′ within the hole of polygon 1303′) and the surrounding regions, such as triangles 1312 surrounding (or nearby) the hole 1308′ in FIG. 13D can be smoothed using a Laplacian smoothing method that adjusts the location of each mesh vertex to the geometric center of its neighbor vertices.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Boise Prosthodontics and 3Shape to include the generating of the smoothing image includes performing a Laplacian-smoothing operation on the crop image as taught by Chen. Doing so would provide a smoothing method to adjust the location of each point to the geometric center of its neighbors (Col 15 Line 23-26 “the hole 1308′ in FIG. 13D can be smoothed using a Laplacian smoothing method that adjusts the location of each mesh vertex to the geometric center of its neighbor vertices.”)
Regarding claim 4, Boise Prosthodontics and 3Shape teach the method of claim 2, but fail to explicitly teach wherein: the generating of the flattened image includes performing a convex hull operation on the smoothing image. In related field of endeavor, Chen teaches performing a convex hull operation on the smoothing image (Claim 16 “modifying the 3-D digital mesh further comprises computing a convex hull.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Boise Prosthodontics and 3Shape to include the generating of the flattened image includes performing a convex hull operation on the smoothing image as taught by Chen. Doing so would connect gaps and refine the image (Claim 19 “refining the bracket region comprises computing a convex hull.”, Col 20 Line 23-24 “The resulting convex hull connects the gap that appears in image 700 and covers the full bracket.”)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boise Prosthodontics and 3Shape as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ozerov et al (US 20180235437 A1, hereinafter Ozerov).
Regarding claim 8, Boise Prosthodontics and 3Shape teach the method of claim 6, but fail to explicitly teach wherein: the generating of the morphing image includes performing radial basis function (RBF) interpolation based on the plurality of moved interpolation points.
In related field of endeavor, Ozerov teaches generating of the morphing image includes performing radial basis function (RBF) interpolation based on the plurality of moved interpolation points ([0067] “A suitable algorithm may be used to compute a non-rigid transformation such as a piecewise-smooth warp space transformation that smoothly deforms a 3D space such that 1) this deformation is as smooth as possible and b) the test point cloud after application of the warp transformation is much better aligned with the reference point cloud. Possible implementation options include, but are not limited to, radial basis function interpolation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Boise Prosthodontics and 3Shape to include generating of the morphing image includes performing radial basis function (RBF) interpolation based on the plurality of moved interpolation points as taught by Ozerov. Doing so would provide a suitable algorithm that results in a deformation that is as smooth as possible ([0067] “A suitable algorithm may be used to compute a non-rigid transformation such as a piecewise-smooth warp space transformation that smoothly deforms a 3D space such that 1) this deformation is as smooth as possible”)
Claims 11-12,15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boise Prosthodontics, 3Shape, and exocad wiki.
Regarding claim 11, Boise Prosthodontics teaches
Boise Prosthodontics fails to explicitly teach set an inner surface of a splint based on the at least one aligned intraoral image. In related field of endeavor, 3Shape teaches setting an inner surface of a splint based on the at least one aligned intraoral image (@2:28 “offset from teeth to splint”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have modified Boise Prosthodontics to include setting an inner surface of a splint based on the at least one aligned intraoral image as taught by 3Shape. Doing so would allow the splint to be able to slip on and off despite the friction between the splint and the teeth (3Shape @2:25-2:38)
Boise Prosthodontics as modified by 3Shape fails to explicitly teach an electronic apparatus, comprising: a user interface device; a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor, but Boise Prosthodontics describes “using exocad software” (0:10), and exocad wiki teaches that exocad DentalCAD software requires an electronic apparatus, comprising: a user interface device; a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor (exocad wiki Hardware Requirements “Minimum hardware configuration to run exocad DentalCAD CPU: Quad-Core and 2.8 Ghz … RAM: 4GB … Graphics: Nvidia GTX or AMD Radeon series dedicated GPU with at least 1 GB graphics memory, OpenGL 4, DirectX 11.1, Shader Model 5 and a graphics driver dated August 2017 or newer … Minimum screen resolution: 1080p (1920x1080”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Boise Prosthodontics as modified by 3Shape to include an electronic apparatus, comprising: a user interface device; a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor as taught by exocad wiki. Doing so would provide the minimum hardware requirements to run exocad software.
Regarding claim 12, the apparatus claim 12 is similar in scope to the method claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, the apparatus claim 15 is similar in scope to the method claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, the apparatus claim 16 is similar in scope to the method claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, the apparatus claim 18 is similar in scope to the method claim 9, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the apparatus claim 19 is similar in scope to the method claim 10, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the computer readable storage medium claim 20 is similar in scope to the apparatus claim 11, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boise Prosthodontics, 3Shape, and exocad wiki as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chen et al (US 11896455 B2, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 13, the apparatus claim 13 is similar in scope to the method claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, the apparatus claim 14 is similar in scope to the method claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boise Prosthodontics, 3Shape, and exocad wiki as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ozerov et al (US 20180235437 A1, hereinafter Ozerov).
Regarding claim 17, the apparatus claim 17 is similar in scope to the method claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Decker et al (US 20150238345 A1, hereinafter Decker) teaches forming a virtual image of an oral splint by obtaining a scan or image of a jaw of a subject or patient, aligning the image, generating an outline, generating an initial splint configuration, and further refining the splint configuration based on the scan or image (Claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK GOCO whose telephone number is (571)272-5872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/J.P.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights