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
This application is a CIP of application 15/023537. It is noted that application 15/023537 does not provide support for the processing of the photos and/or film being done with a neural network. It is therefore noted that all of the claims are entitled to the effective filling date of the current application which is 9/10/2020. It is noted that claims 27 and 29-32 are also not supported by the originally filed application.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 12, 14, 19-20, 24, 26-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for remote monitoring the position of a patient's teeth. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed towards an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations only retrieve a model which is well understood, routine and conventional computer functions. Step 1: The claims directed to "a method of dental treatment", that apparently is intended to use a generic system, including a camera to obtain a digital representation of the teeth. The "method" is within the 35 U.S.C. 101 statutory category of a "process" (MPEP 2106.03), but falls into the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.06).
Step 2A: In regards to the claimed, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106305). The claimed invention is directed towards a mental process and organizing human activity, both of which are abstract ideas. The concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations and judgements. Such that the claimed modeling may be done mentally, such that the dentist and/or patient draws the teeth in the target position and the updated position and then the models are mentally compared. The step of sending a reminder to the patient, does not require a transformation, such that a message can be provided to the patient that they should provide an updated model. Further the step of "administer a therapeutic or a preventive treatment to the patient" does not require a procedure to be performed on the patient, such that it can be provided to the patient orally or written. The limitation of using a “neural network” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial expectation is performed. It is noted that dentist have long practiced their art/trade of orthodontics well before the advent of computers and are most certainly capable of comparing target and updated models. It is noted that there is no claimed transformation of the information. Such that the comparing can be done by the patient at home and that comparison will inform the patient as to what they should do and the designing of the appliance can be done on a piece of paper or in a user's head. The claimed method is further an abstract idea of generally organizing human behavior, such as managing interactions between people.
Step 2B: In regards to the claims, the claims steps are all algorithms capable of being performed mentally and represent nothing more than concepts related to performing mathematical calculations which fall within the judicial exception. The claimed invention is the intended use of computer or data processing device, however, there is no disclosure in the written that the processing unit is anything more than a generic component, nor is there any disclosure that the method improves the manner in which the processing unit operates. The mere recitation in the claims of a generic conventional processing unit that is used in a conventional manner to perform conventional computer functions that are well understood and routine does not amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception. The claims do not go beyond "determining" and "calculating" numerical values based on mathematical algorithms with a standard generic computer. The claimed use of a neural network are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). The analysis of data in a particular field and the stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions is an abstract idea and does not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims do not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine and they do not require that the method particularly transform a particular article. The claims set forth a process of analyzing information of a specific content and are not directed to any particularly asserted inventive technology for performing those functions. Nothing in the claims or specification requires anything more than a conventional prior art computer for analyzing number according to a mathematical algorithm. The claimed method falls with the judicial exception to patent eligible subject matter of an abstract idea without significantly more.
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) 1-2, 5, 7-8, 12, 14, 19-20, 24, 26, 28, and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (2016/0228212) in view of Li et al. (2021/0186659) (note the effective filling date being that of the provisional application filed 12/23/2019).
Salah teaches with respect to claim 1, a method of dental treatment, said method comprising the following steps: a) sending to the patient at least one reminder informing the patient of the need for a three-dimensional updated digital model to be created (par. 67); b) after a time interval following step a), processing of photos and/or a film, said photos and/or film being acquired, using an individual apparatus, by the patient or by one of the patient's relations, to create an updated position of said teeth in the form of said updated model, said photos and/or film being acquired, using an individual apparatus, by the patient or by one of the patient's relations, the individual apparatus being one or more of a cell phone, a smart watch and a digital tablet (pars 62, 69 wherein step b) is carried out outside an orthodontic practice, and the processing is done with a computer; c) comparing a target model and the updated model using an algorithm to supply a distance between characteristic points on the target model and same characteristic points on the updated model, the target model being a modeling of a target position of said teeth and being an image or a three-dimensional digital model (pars. 87, 89-91), wherein different practical information is supplied depending on a position of the distance with respect to at least one threshold (par. 94-95), said target model supplying information concerning the position of teeth with an error of less than 5/10 mm (par. 14); and d) based on the information supplied, administer a therapeutic or a preventive treatment to the patient (par. 97), wherein in step b) error prevention means guide the patient or the one of the patient's relation by visual messages and/or audio messages and/or written messages and/or voice messages and/or on the basis of information supplied by the target model (pars. 77-79). Salah teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach processing the photos and/or film with a neural network.
Li teaches a method of dental treatment, the method comprising the following steps including processing photos with a neural network to create an updated position of the teeth in the form of an updated model (pars. 8, 27, 55, abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the processing of the photos taught by Salah with the method of using a neural network as taught by Li in order to obtain an accurate 3D model of the teeth from the 2D photos (see par. 8 of Li, such that it creates a best match model).
With respect to claim 2 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching the individual apparatus is a cell phone (see par. 69).
With respect to claim 5 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching wherein said photos comprise at least three photos, corresponding to a view of the patient’s teeth from the front, a view of the patient’s teeth from the right and a view of the patient’s teeth from the left (see par. 70).
With respect to claim 7 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching wherein the time interval between steps a) and b) is indeterminate and depends on decisions of the patient (see pars. 15, 65).
With respect to claim 8 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching wherein the time interval between steps a) and b) is determined by the orthodontist according to a monitor schedule and/or the patient’s decision (see pars. 64-65).
With respect to claim 12 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching wherein at least part of the target model or at least a part of a reference model appears in transparency to the patient or to said one of the patient’s relations during said acquisition (see par. 83).
With respect to claim 14 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching wherein the target model is a photo or a two-dimensional view of a 3D model (see par. 56).
With respect to claim 19 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching the target model is a three-dimensional digital model (par. 56), and said processing of photos and/or film is processing of photos (pars. 85, claim 10).
With respect to claim 20 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching, wherein, at step c), the comparison is carried out automatically or semi-automatically and the algorithm is a 3D best fit algorithm (see par. 89).
With respect to claim 24 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching, wherein, at step c), the different practical information is supplied depending on a position of said distance with respect to several thresholds fixed by a dental professional (pars. 94-96).
With respect to claim 26 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching, wherein the cell phone displays images or a sequence of images showing the position of the teeth at different dates (par. 100).
With respect to claim 28 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching wherein steps b) and c) are repeated to evaluate the speed at which an orthodontic treatment causes the position of the teeth to change (par. 119).
With respect to claim 33 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching using a result of the comparing to evaluate the efficacy of an orthodontic treatment and/or evaluate the change of position of teeth toward a theoretical model corresponding to a defined position of the teeth (see par. 119, claim 16).
With respect to claim 34 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching comprising using a result of the comparing to monitor the development of the position of teeth independently of an orthodontic treatment (see par. 118).
With respect to claim 35 Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching comprising remotely monitoring the position of a patient’s teeth in a course of an orthodontic treatment (see par. 120).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (2016/0228212) in view of Li et al. (2021/0186659) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Kopelman et al. (2018/0168781).
With respect to claim 27, Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching the cell phone displaying the teeth at different first and second dates (see par. 100), however, does not specifically teach the cell phone displays an image having first and second portions showing the positions of the teeth at different first and second dates, respectively, the first and second portion being complementary so as to realistically.
Kopelman teaches displaying an image having first and second portions showing the positions of teeth at different first and second dates (see pars. 45, 67, 106, 117-118, 165), the first and second portion being complementary so as to realistically represent the mouth of the patient, the first and second portions may be modified by interaction with the screen (see par. 62 regarding icons in which the user can interact with, pars. 45, 67, 106, 117-118, 165, such that it is an augmented reality). Kopelman further teaches multiple images can be displayed at once (see par. 52). It is noted that Kopelman does not specifically teach the images are separated by a vertical line that may be moved by an interaction with the screen, however, it is noted that Kopelman does teach icons and other elements that are used by user interaction to change the images, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the icons to include a line as an obvious matter of design choice, as it is will known in the art that lines are used in computer graphics. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the method of Salah/Li to include images at different dates in order to track the orthodontic treatment progress and illustrate to the user the treatment progression.
Claim(s) 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (2016/0228212) in view of Li et al. (2021/0186659) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Lancelle et al. (2019/0254791).
With respect to claim 29, Salah/Li teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaching wherein, at step b) all or part of the target model is rendered visible on a screw of the cell phone operated by the patient or by said one of the patient’s relations, the target model being represented, on a preview image which is a digital images (see pars. 23, 45, 61, 79), however, does not specifically teach the target model being representing a real scene observed by a camera of the cell phone, as said target model would appear to said camera if it was in the real scene.
Lancelle teaches a method of dental treatment, the method comprising creating a target model and further with respect to claim 29, the target model is rendered visible on a screen of the cell phone operated by patient or one of the patient’s relations, the target model being represented, on a preview image which is a digital image representing a real scene observed by a camera of the cell phone, as said target model would appear to said camera if it was in the real scene (see pars. 7, 55, 58, fig. 1, abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the method of Salah/Li to include the target model as a preview image in a real scene as taught by Lancelle in order to provide a realistic image for the user.
With respect to claim 30, Salah/Li/Lancelle teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaches wherein the modeling the target position of the teeth in the form of the target model comprises the creation of one or more images or a three-dimensional view in which the teeth appear in transparency, and/or involves a generation of two-dimensional images (see pars. 56, 80).
With respect to claim 31, Salah/Li/Lancelle teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaches wherein the target model is a three-dimensional target model, and said two-dimensional images are images from said three-dimensional target model (see par. 80).
With respect to claim 32, Salah/Li/Lancelle teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Salah further teaches wherein the screen displays a view of the target model corresponding to a photo to be taken with said cell phone (see par. 83).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the claimed method would not be practical if performed in the mind. It is noted that while the method may not be practical or produce as exact results if performed in the mind, the claim is still capable of being performed in the mind, and therefore, the rejection is maintained. The limitation including the processing of the photos is done with a neural network does not overcome the 101 rejection as the claim does not claim any specifics to the neural network or how it is trained. Such that the claimed limitation are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solation activity (see MPEP 2106305(g)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Eisenberg to teach adjustable vertical lines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 8/13/2026
Prosecution Insights