DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim under US PRO 62/662558 filed on 4/25/2018.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang et al, US 2008/0063998 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Liang discloses an intra-oral optical scanning method for intra-oral optical scanning comprising: illuminating an area in an intra-oral feature; and measuring a fluorescence of said first area (Liang [0029]-[0030] – imaging a tooth comprising: at least one light source providing incident light having a first spectral range for obtaining a reflectance image on the tooth and a second spectral range for exciting a fluorescence image of the tooth).
Regarding Claim 4, Liang discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising identifying an intra-oral feature based on estimated optical properties (Liang [0072] – it has been shown that light scattering properties differ between sound and carious dental regions. In particular, reflectance of light from the illuminated area can be at measurably different levels for normal versus carious areas. This change in reflectance, taken alone, may not be sufficiently pronounced to be of diagnostic value when considered by itself, since this effect is very slight, although detectable).
Regarding Claim 5, Liang discloses the method according to claim 4, further comprising segmenting an image of said first area based on estimated optical properties (Liang [0133] – With the information obtained from the white light and fluorescence images, different image processing algorithms such as color rendering, contrast enhancement, and segmentation, can be applied to enhance the image in steps 206 and 208).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, in view of Inglese et al, US 2022/0369913 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Liang discloses the method according to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Liang does not explicitly disclose said fluorescence is used for estimating enamel demineralization
Inglese teaches the fluorescence is used for estimating enamel demineralization (Inglese Fig.7-B, [0068] – Fluoresced light 72 of green wavelengths, approximately in the range from 500-550 nm, is detected from portions of the tooth 20 having normal mineral content, not exhibiting perceptible damage from decay. In the representation shown in FIG. 7A, a demineralized area 26 is more opaque than healthy enamel and tends to block the incident excitation light 70 as well as to block back-scattered fluorescent light from surrounding enamel; [0056] – an optional image processing and analysis step S140 can be performed to aid in caries detection for bacteria activity and demineralization).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Liang to have the fluorescence used for estimating enamel demineralization, as taught by Inglese. One would be motivated the fluorescence would allow the glow to determine whether there is enamel demineralization.
Claim(s) 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, in view of Ghosh et al, US 2005/0261795 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Liang discloses the method according to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Liang does not explicitly disclose identifying a manufacturer of a restoration based on optical properties of said area.
Ghosh teaches identifying a manufacturer of a restoration based on optical properties of said area (Ghosh [0012] – The Cerec System uses an optical imaging process with the help of an intra-oral camera that digitally records the restoration preparation site to the computer, where it is visualized as an optical impression in the monitor. The computer design software is then used to plot a number of restoration parameters, such as the cavity floor, proximal contact, cavosurface margin, occlusal fissure line, and cusp height and location. Each of the design parameters can be edited with the software to ensure accuracy of fit and reproduction of the desired contour. Once the design is completed, the software program creates a volumetric model of the restoration site from the established parameters. This information is then used by the computer to direct milling of the prefabricated blanks of the selected restorative material into the final three-dimensional restoration).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Liang to identify a manufacturer of a restoration based on optical properties of said area, as taught by Ghosh. One would be motivated as the optical properties can be used to accurately build the restoration parameters.
Regarding Claim 11, Liang and Ghosh teach the method according to claim 10, as outlined above.
However, Liang does not explicitly disclose acquiring a new restoration from said manufacturer
Ghosh teaches acquiring a new restoration from said manufacturer (Ghosh [0012] – The Cerec System uses an optical imaging process with the help of an intra-oral camera that digitally records the restoration preparation site to the computer, where it is visualized as an optical impression in the monitor. The computer design software is then used to plot a number of restoration parameters, such as the cavity floor, proximal contact, cavosurface margin, occlusal fissure line, and cusp height and location. Each of the design parameters can be edited with the software to ensure accuracy of fit and reproduction of the desired contour. Once the design is completed, the software program creates a volumetric model of the restoration site from the established parameters. This information is then used by the computer to direct milling of the prefabricated blanks of the selected restorative material into the final three-dimensional restoration).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Liang to acquire a new restoration from said manufacturer, as taught by Ghosh. One would be motivated as the restoration is made from the imaging.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, in view of Yamada et al, US 2012/0012789 A1.
Regarding Claim 12, Liang discloses the method according to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Liang does not explicitly disclose choosing a material for a restoration to match an optical property of an intraoral object.
Yamada teaches choosing a material for a restoration to match an optical property of an intraoral object (Yamada [0055] – When fabricating a dental prosthesis to be mounted in a mouth, for instance, it has been a practice to cut out a block, composed of zirconia (zirconium oxide), to form a frame for use using CAD/CAM techniques (see, for example, Patent Publication 2). Employing such a frame made of zirconia enables a whole of the prosthesis to be formed of ceramic in all-ceramic material).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Liang to choose a material for a restoration to match an optical property of an intraoral object, as taught by Yamada. One would be motivated as the material can be best selected by the parameters from the images captured.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, in view of Tornvall et al, US 2011/0117521 A1.
Regarding Claim 13, Liang discloses the method according to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Liang does not explicitly disclose choosing multiple materials for a restoration to match an optical property of a plurality of layers of an intraoral object
Tornvall teaches choosing multiple materials for a restoration to match an optical property of a plurality of layers of an intraoral object (Tornvall [0045] – The necessary implants and abutments are chosen according to the planned construction and the angulation of implants and abutments is defined with the final tooth setup either on stone models or by CAD program. When the planning is done manually, implant replicas are fixed on the tooth setup to be transferred to the stereolithography model for confirmation of the plan and modeling of the framework for tissue-engineered bone. The area around implants is covered with sufficient amount of solid material, e.g. acrylic resin, to make a template for forming of the supporting frame and finally an inert supporting bar is manufactured from e.g. titanium, zirconia or gold alloy for splinting the implants into the desired positions. The total volume, size and shape of the frame are evaluated also regarding the effect to the facial soft tissues and if necessary, implant positions or angulation are altered accordingly).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Liang to choose multiple materials for a restoration to match an optical property of a plurality of layers of an intraoral object, as taught by Yamada. One would be motivated as the material can be best selected by the parameters from the images captured.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang and Yamada, in view of Tornvall.
Regarding Claim 14, Liang and Yamada the method according to claim 12, as outlined above.
However, Liang does not explicitly disclose manufacturing said restoration.
Tornvall teaches manufacturing said restoration (Tornvall [0045] – The necessary implants and abutments are chosen according to the planned construction and the angulation of implants and abutments is defined with the final tooth setup either on stone models or by CAD program. When the planning is done manually, implant replicas are fixed on the tooth setup to be transferred to the stereolithography model for confirmation of the plan and modeling of the framework for tissue-engineered bone. The area around implants is covered with sufficient amount of solid material, e.g. acrylic resin, to make a template for forming of the supporting frame and finally an inert supporting bar is manufactured from e.g. titanium, zirconia or gold alloy for splinting the implants into the desired positions. The total volume, size and shape of the frame are evaluated also regarding the effect to the facial soft tissues and if necessary, implant positions or angulation are altered accordingly).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Liang to manufacture said restoration, as taught by Tornvall. One would be motivated as the manufacturing the material determined from the imaging.
Regarding Claim 15, Liang, Yamada and Tornvall teach the method according to claim 14, as outlined above.
However, Liang does not explicitly disclose manufacturing includes additive manufacturing.
Tornvall teaches manufacturing includes additive manufacturing (Tornvall [0045] – The necessary implants and abutments are chosen according to the planned construction and the angulation of implants and abutments is defined with the final tooth setup either on stone models or by CAD program. When the planning is done manually, implant replicas are fixed on the tooth setup to be transferred to the stereolithography model for confirmation of the plan and modeling of the framework for tissue-engineered bone. The area around implants is covered with sufficient amount of solid material, e.g. acrylic resin, to make a template for forming of the supporting frame and finally an inert supporting bar is manufactured from e.g. titanium, zirconia or gold alloy for splinting the implants into the desired positions. The total volume, size and shape of the frame are evaluated also regarding the effect to the facial soft tissues and if necessary, implant positions or angulation are altered accordingly).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Liang where the manufacturing includes additive manufacturing, as taught by Tornvall. One would be motivated as the additive manufacturing includes the breakdown of materials used to create the product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-9, 16-20 are 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 various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record. The various claimed limitations mentioned including the interrelationships and all of the limitations of the base claim and the elements with respect to:
wherein estimating enamel demineralization is performed by at least one of fluorescence optical absorption and optical scattering
applying deep learning configured to improve at least one of said identifying and said segmenting
said intra-oral feature is a biofilm
identifying is based on detecting said fluorescence
displaying a 3D model that simulates at least one of measured absorption and scattering
collecting color information for a plurality of sections, each section illuminated by a plurality of colors; producing a model to classify an object's shade information; and using a probe to mark a desired location for collecting color data of an intra-oral feature
estimating a color of a first section from a first image; illuminating said first area, a second area and a non-illuminated area under same illumination conditions; imaging again said first area, the second area and the non-illuminated area under said same illumination conditions, thereby producing a second image; and correcting the estimated color based on the second image
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SHAHNAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-0707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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.
/AMIR SHAHNAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483