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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, and the previous restriction requirement has been withdrawn. The pending claims are 1-27.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke et al. (US 2022/0117713) in view of Karim et al. (US 20100233655) and Flannigan et al. (US 9527275).
As to claims 1 and 20-23, Franke et al. discloses a method comprising analyzing a dental restoration component (see 0034- providing restoration data comprise scanning the restoration material after pre-sintering), and determine information related to the physical representation of the dental restoration component including the restoration material and base color, and generating a color characteristic for the restoration based on the measurement data (see 0011). The surface may be represented as a grid or mesh with color information assigned to a portion of the restoration surface (see 0014, 0058). Franke et al. further teaches that the color characteristic may comprise “pixels of a color value image” (see 0015) and calculates a multicolor target coloration from this color characteristic, with the target coloration identifying which grid points receive a particular color or remain untreated (see 0016-18). The multicolor coloration is applied using a coloration device that automatically applies the colors to the dental restoration (see 0032-34, 0041).
As to claim 11, and 24-27, Franke teaches a device for customized coloration having a computing unit, memory, and a processor for generating a color characteristic from restoration data and calculating a target coloration; the device may further include a coloration device adapted to automatically apply the target coloration to the dental restoration (see 0016, 0018, 0032, 0040-41).
Franke fails to teach determining multi-axis positioning for a printhead corresponding to a threshold throw distance as required by claims 1 and 11, 20.
Karim et al. teaches multi-axis dental painting. Karim discloses digitally controlled painting of dental restorations using a digital three dimensional model of the dental articled and digitally controlled paint head. The paint head is moved relative to the restoration, or the restoration is moved relative to the paint head, so that selected portions of the restoration surface can be presented to the paint head for selective deposition of material. Karim et al. teaches providing translation and rotation along a number of axes and using the digital model of the dental article to control positioning. Karim et al. further teaches using characteristics such as color, opacity, and texture along the dental surface when controlling the painting process (see 0009, 0029, 0054-0057, and 0069).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Franke et al. to include the digitally controlled multi-axis dental painting arrangement of Karim. One would have been motivated to do so since Franke teaches adaptive pixel/grid information identifying the material being applied and at which locations on a 3D restoration, while Karim teaches a known mechanism for positioning a paint head and dental restoration along multiple translational and rotational axes so that those locations can be accurately presented to the print head.
Karim et al. teaches the painting system can include position or range detection to help ensure accurate distribution of paint on the restoration (see 0069) but fails to teach maintaining the claimed threshold throw distance as required.
Flannigan et al. discloses a high-accuracy inkjet printing system having standoff sensors that generate data representative of the distance between the printhead and the surface. Flannigan further teaches linear and rotary actuator for positioning the printhead along x, y, and z axes and roll, pitch, and yaw (multi-axis printhead positioning, see col. 11, lines 55-63). Flannigan further teaches measuring a distance between the liquid ejector and a surface and maintaining the distance within a defined range to improve the quality of the printed material (see col. 2, lines 18-23, 30-54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the standoff distance control of Flannigan into the multi-axis dental painting system of Franke modified by Karim et al. Karim teaches position/range detection for accurate paint distribution, while Flannigan provides a known method of measuring the printhead to surface distance and adjusting the printhead position to maintain the distance within the range. Flannigan teaches the adjustment is used to compensate for surface contours, irregularities, and curvature which should be considered when applying material to complex curves surfaces of dental restorations. One would have been motivated to do so in order to maintain an appropriate throw distance while transversing the curved restoration surface, thereby improving accuracy and consistency of applying the target coloration of Franke.
As to claims 2 and 12, Franke et al. teaches that the measurement information is provided by scanning and further teaches the use of a 3D camera from which a grid can be generated. The surface grid comprises grid points associated with the portions of the surface and color values, thereby teaching or at least suggesting spatial coordinates identifying locations on the scanned surface. The surface/grid information is used to generate the color characteristic and target coloration (see 0018, 0034).
As to claims 4 and 14, Franke teaches characteristics is related to geometry and surface characteristics (see 0017, 0057-58).
As to claims 5 and 15, Flannigan teaches the printhead contains multiple liquid ejectors (see col. 3, lines 12-19).
As to claims 7 and 17, Flannigan teaches the actuators positioning the printhead along the principal orthogonal x, y, and z axis and rotary axis (see col. 11, lines 55-63),
As to claims 8 and 18, Franke teaches providing staining or glazing color data (see abstract).
As to claims 9 and 19, Franke teaches an optical recording device for checking the application of color to the dental restoration (see 0045) and states the application can be continuously monitored as a feedback system (see 0046). It would have been obvious to use Flannigan’s threshold based standoff determination as part of Franke’s feedback validation because both measurements concern whether the application remains within a predetermined operating/accuracy requirements.
As to claim 10, Flannigan teaches a high accuracy inkjet printer (see abstract).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke et al. (US 2022/0117713) in view of Karim et al. (US 20100233655) and Flannigan et al. (US 9527275) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Stemmer et al. (US 20180243051).
The teachings of Franke, Karim et al. and Flannigan as applied to claims 1 and 11 are as stated above.
Franke, Karim et al. and Flannigan et al. fail to teach generating a simulation of a 3D model by overlaying a design specification over the 3D model as required by claims 3 and 13.
Stemmer et al. discloses providing image data representing a patient’s dentiton and generating a virtual three0dimensional model representing the dentition. The virtual model includes physical characteristics of the teeth such as shape, color, interdental spacing, and position. The model is digitally modified to generate another model representing a proposed corrected or cosmetically modified dental configuration (see 6, 0073-82).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to us the virtual 3D modeling and design overlay taught by Stemmer in the process of Franke modified by Karim et al. and Flannigan. One would have been motivated to do so since Franke teaches obtaining 3D information and calculating target coloration while Stemmer further teaches a known dental design technique for applying proposed restoration design to a 3D model and visualizing the result before manufacture to validate the intended restoration appearance before painting.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke et al. (US 2022/0117713) in view of Karim et al. (US 20100233655) and Flannigan et al. (US 9527275) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Baker et al. (US 20190030886).
The teachings of Franke, Karim et al. and Flannigan as applied to claims 1 and 11 are as stated above.
Franke, Karim et al. and Flannigan et al. fail to teach the throw distance is a maximum of 5 millimeters as required by claims 6 and 16.
Baker et al. teaches controlling an inkjet printhead as it applied material to a non-planar or contoured three-dimensional surface. The system obtains metrology data representing the contoured surface, generates a three-dimensional point cloud model of the surface, and determines the print path for the inkjet head based on the measured surface geometry (see abstract, 0004). Baker et al. further teaches controlling the dispense gap distance between the inkjet printhead and the surface such that it is 5mm or less (see 0044) to control coating quality.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process and device of Franke, Karim and Flannigan to include the standoff distance taught by Baker et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both teach accurately applying material from a printhead onto a curved or irregular 3D surface where Baker et al. further teaches maintaining a distance of 5mm or less between the printhead and the surface provides accurate coating deposition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights