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 .
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.
Claims 5-6 are 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 5 recites the limitation “the current teeth position model represents the patient’s teeth in the 2D image of the patient’s teeth, wherein the current teeth position model is located outside of an elastic working range of the plurality of aligners such that the current teeth position is not on track for use with the plurality of aligners of the orthodontic treatment plan”. It is still unclear how the “model” can have an elastic working range. Since the model is representing a current state of the patient’s teeth and not an aligner at the current state of the teeth as claimed, it is confusing how the teeth of the model have an elastic working range. For examining purposes, it was understood that the current teeth position model represents a current aligner wherein said current aligner is the worn aligner used for the teeth to achieve their current state.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of dependency.
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, 4, 8, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 2019/0125493 A1), in view of Xue et al. (US 2019/0180443 A1), Wen (US 2017/0100214 AA1), Kopelman et al. (US 2018/0206940 A1), and further in view of Korytov (US 2008/0206700 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Salah et al. teaches a method for performing orthodontic intervention, the method (abstract and see claim 1) comprising:
receiving at least one image of a patient's teeth from a patient undergoing an orthodontic treatment plan utilizing a plurality of orthodontic aligners ([0099] and claims 1 and 14; an image is acquired under actual acquisition conditions. The treatment plan includes an image of an unworn aligner, such that it is one of the planned future aligners);
using the at least one image to create a current teeth position model ([0097-0099]; a model of the acquired image is created);
determining that the current teeth position model is not compatible with the plurality of orthodontic aligners ([0100-0102]; a comparison model is determined such that the current positioning is evaluated to determine if a replacement aligner is needed);
generating an electronic model of a rescue appliance configured to move the teeth to a position compatible with at least one aligner of the plurality of orthodontic aligners ([0102-0103]; a replacement appliance is designed);
sending the electronic model of the rescue appliance to an aligner manufacturer ([0572]; the replacement appliance is manufactured and so the model must be sent to be manufactured); and manufacturing the rescue appliance based on the electronic model of the rescue appliance ([0572]); and
sending the rescue appliance from the aligner manufacturer directly to the patient ([0572]; the single replacement aligner is sent to the patient).
Salah teaches wherein the at least one image comprises a 2D image of the patient’s teeth patient ([0104, [0320] and claim 6; the image is taken by a commercially available device such as a phone or tablet and so it is a 2D image) and processing and using the image to determine teeth positions with respect to a planned teeth position model based on an orthodontic plan to reposition the patient’s teeth ([0110]). Salah also teaches the images/photographs are used without requiring a rescan of the patient’s teeth ([0107]). However, Salah is silent to the image being taken while the patient is wearing the appliance.
Xue et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of methods for tooth detection and evaluation in orthodontic treatment ([0025]). Xue teaches the method includes acquiring images that may be 2D images ([0042]) to use them for identify information about tooth positions and the image that is processed may be an image of a patient’s face where the patient is wearing an orthodontic aligner on their teeth ([0026]). In such example, comparing edges having a first label (e.g. tooth edges) to adjacent edges having a second label (e.g. aligner edges) to determine a distance between the aligner edges and the tooth edges such that if the determined distance is greater thana distance threshold, then the system may determine that the aligner does not properly fit the patient’s teeth and may perform one or more corrective actions ([0026)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to have 2D images acquired while the patient is wearing an orthodontic appliance, as taught by Xue, as it would allow comparing and evaluating deformation in the appliance and deviation from its intended and planned position and allow acting accordingly with consideration of the evaluated information.
Salah is further silent to a 2D image of an unworn aligner of the plurality of orthodontic aligners, wherein the worn aligner and the unworn aligner comprise indicators, and wherein the 2D images comprise the indicators and the processing of the at least one image comprises observing the worn aligner for attributes of the indicators that show positional deviances from a planned treatment position and quantitatively measuring the attributes of the indicators to measure location of teeth, and wherein the determining of the relative teeth position comprises quantitatively measuring and comparing locations of the indicators of the worn aligner to locations of the indicators of an unworn aligner.
Wen teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic planning (abstract). Wen teaches an appliance may include one or more external an/or internal markers (e.g. position markers), such that they can be read externally to determine the current tooth movement to help the practitioner in deciding future movement adjustments, if needed ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to include having markers, such as position markers on the aligner, as taught by Wen, as it would allow the practitioner to assess tooth movement and necessary future adjustments as needed by analyzing the marker positions.
Kopelman teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatment planning methods (abstract). Kopelman teaches the method comprises generating a treatment plan with multiple treatment stages of aligners to be worn by a patient to achieve desired tooth repositioning ([0039-0040]) and during treatment, assessing deviation at an intermediate stage ([0041]). Kopelman teaches the image data received during the intermediate stage in the multi-stage orthodontic treatment plan may be used to analyze a fit of a next/unworn aligner based on the actual current condition of the dental arch (e.g., based on current teeth positions, occlusion, arch width, and so on). If the next aligner will not have an optimal fit on the patient ' s dental arch e.g., will not fit onto the dental arch or will fit but will not apply the desired forces on one or more teeth), then new aligners may be designed based on updating the treatment plan staging ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Salah to comprise comparing an image of a current stage of an aligning treatment to an image of a planned/future (i.e., unworn) stage of the treatment, as taught by Kopelman, as it would allow assessing whether the planned/future aligner will fit onto the teeth at their current state or whether additional appliances should be administered to get the teeth to proper positioning to be back on track with the planned treatment.
Korytov et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic correction tracking methods (abstract). Korytov teaches the method comprising using a set of positioning appliances shaped to move the teeth and each stage corresponds to a particular positioning appliance and mapping a current teeth position based upon positions of a number of physical markers attached to a number of physical teeth. The physical markers can be any suitable marker type and can be permanently or temporarily fixed to one or more of the teeth to be analyzed ([0023]). If the virtual and physical markers are positioned in the same places on the one or more teeth being analyzed, then the difference in position can be more precisely accomplished, in some instances. For these virtual and/or physical markers, positional information can be used to identify the position of one or more teeth in the virtual model and/or the physical teeth arrangement and can be used to determine which appliance may be the best point to restart a treatment process ([0029]). The position of the physical markers on the image can be detected. Such markers can be compared (e.g., matched) with the virtual teeth model to obtain actual teeth positions relative to the virtual teeth model. In this way, a determination can be made whether a particular appliance is suitable for restarting the treatment process. This comparison can also be useful in generally identifying where in the treatment process a patient is ([0035]). An advantage of using markers may be that the amount of computing device processing power is less when calculating the location of a number of markers rather than portions of or the entire tooth, teeth, and/or appliance. In such embodiments, the ability to use less processing power may allow a patient or orthodontics office to use a computing device, such as a desktop computing device or local server, to do such calculations. Such ability may result in faster analysis and/or change of treatment ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Salah to comprise comparing a location of a position marker on a current state image with a position marker on a planned state image, as taught by Korytov, as it would simplify determination of relative distances/locations between the current state and planned future state to assess deviation and would allow getting the plan back on track with less computing device processing power due to the presence of markers.
The combination would teach markers on a current stage appliance and markers on an unworn/future appliance and images of them being compared as to determine whether the unworn/future appliance will fit onto the current state of the teeth to determine whether the patient progress is on-track and whether adjustment of the treatment plan is necessary.
Regarding claim 2, Salah in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above). Salah teaches wherein the at least one image is electronically transmitted from a network access device of the patient and wherein the at least one image file was generated by the access device of the patient ([0104] and [0320] and see claim 6; the image is acquired using a personal device such as a phone, tablet, or a personal computer).
Regarding claim 4, Salah in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above). Salah teaches wherein the current teeth position model is generated by user observations and/or measurements of the at least one image (see Fig. 9 and claim 1; the model is designed based on acquisition and regions of the acquired image).
Regarding claim 8, Salah in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above). Salah teaches wherein the electronic model of the rescue appliance is generated without requiring a rescan of the patient's teeth ([0107]; no new scan of the teeth is necessary).
Regarding claim 11, Salah et al. teaches a computer system for performing orthodontic intervention (abstract and claim 1), the computer system comprising:
an image processing module configured to
receive: at least one image of a patient's teeth from a patient undergoing an orthodontic treatment plan utilizing a plurality of orthodontic aligners and create a current teeth position model based on the at least one image ([0096-0104] and claim 1 and see Figures; the method is conducted on a computer device that undergoes the steps of the method);
a rescue appliance model generation module configured to create an electronic model of a rescue appliance for moving the patient's teeth to a position compatible with at least one aligner of the plurality of orthodontic aligners ([0103-0104] and claim 1; a replacement appliance is designed on a computer device) without having to rescan the patient's teeth ([0107]; no need for new scans is necessary).
a manufacturing machine configured to produce the rescue appliance based on the generated model of the rescue appliance ([0572]).
Salah teaches wherein the at least one image comprises a 2D image of the patient’s teeth patient ([0104, [0320] and claim 6; the image is taken by a commercially available device such as a phone or tablet and so it is a 2D image) and processing and using the image to determine teeth positions with respect to a planned teeth position model based on an orthodontic plan to reposition the patient’s teeth ([0110]). Salah also teaches the images/photographs are used without requiring a rescan of the patient’s teeth ([0107]). However, Salah is silent to the image being taken while the patient is wearing the appliance.
Xue et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of methods for tooth detection and evaluation in orthodontic treatment ([0025]). Xue teaches the method includes acquiring images that may be 2D images ([0042]) to use them for identify information about tooth positions and the image that is processed may be an image of a patient’s face where the patient is wearing an orthodontic aligner on their teeth ([0026]). In such example, comparing edges having a first label (e.g. tooth edges) to adjacent edges having a second label (e.g. aligner edges) to determine a distance between the aligner edges and the tooth edges such that if the determined distance is greater thana distance threshold, then the system may determine that the aligner does not properly fit the patient’s teeth and may perform one or more corrective actions ([0026)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to have 2D images acquired while the patient is wearing an orthodontic appliance, as taught by Xue, as it would allow comparing and evaluating deformation in the appliance and deviation from its intended and planned position and allow acting accordingly with consideration of the evaluated information.
Salah is further silent to a 2D image of an unworn aligner of the plurality of orthodontic aligners, wherein the worn aligner and the unworn aligner comprise indicators, and wherein the 2D images comprise the indicators and the processing of the at least one image comprises observing the worn aligner for attributes of the indicators that show positional deviances from a planned treatment position and quantitatively measuring the attributes of the indicators to measure location of teeth, and wherein the determining of the relative teeth position comprises quantitatively measuring and comparing locations of the indicators of the worn aligner to locations of the indicators of an unworn aligner.
Wen teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic planning (abstract). Wen teaches an appliance may include one or more external an/or internal markers (e.g. position markers), such that they can be read externally to determine the current tooth movement to help the practitioner in deciding future movement adjustments, if needed ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to include having markers, such as position markers on the aligner, as taught by Wen, as it would allow the practitioner to assess tooth movement and necessary future adjustments as needed by analyzing the marker positions.
Kopelman teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatment planning methods (abstract). Kopelman teaches the method comprises generating a treatment plan with multiple treatment stages of aligners to be worn by a patient to achieve desired tooth repositioning ([0039-0040]) and during treatment, assessing deviation at an intermediate stage ([0041]). Kopelman teaches the image data received during the intermediate stage in the multi-stage orthodontic treatment plan may be used to analyze a fit of a next aligner based on the actual current condition of the dental arch (e.g., based on current teeth positions, occlusion, arch width, and so on). If the next aligner will not have an optimal fit on the patient ' s dental arch e.g., will not fit onto the dental arch or will fit but will not apply the desired forces on one or more teeth), then new aligners may be designed based on updating the treatment plan staging ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Salah to comprise comparing an image of a current stage of an aligning treatment to an image of a planned/future (i.e., unworn) stage of the treatment, as taught by Kopelman, as it would allow assessing whether the planned/future aligner will fit onto the teeth at their current state or whether additional appliances should be administered to get the teeth to proper positioning to be back on track with the planned treatment.
Korytov et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic correction tracking methods (abstract). Korytov teaches the method comprising using a set of positioning appliances shaped to move the teeth and each stage corresponds to a particular positioning appliance and mapping a current teeth position based upon positions of a number of physical markers attached to a number of physical teeth. The physical markers can be any suitable marker type and can be permanently or temporarily fixed to one or more of the teeth to be analyzed ([0023]). If the virtual and physical markers are positioned in the same places on the one or more teeth being analyzed, then the difference in position can be more precisely accomplished, in some instances. For these virtual and/or physical markers, positional information can be used to identify the position of one or more teeth in the virtual model and/or the physical teeth arrangement and can be used to determine which appliance may be the best point to restart a treatment process ([0029]). The position of the physical markers on the image can be detected. Such markers can be compared (e.g., matched) with the virtual teeth model to obtain actual teeth positions relative to the virtual teeth model. In this way, a determination can be made whether a particular appliance is suitable for restarting the treatment process. This comparison can also be useful in generally identifying where in the treatment process a patient is ([0035]). An advantage of using markers may be that the amount of computing device processing power is less when calculating the location of a number of markers rather than portions of or the entire tooth, teeth, and/or appliance. In such embodiments, the ability to use less processing power may allow a patient or orthodontics office to use a computing device, such as a desktop computing device or local server, to do such calculations. Such ability may result in faster analysis and/or change of treatment ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Salah to comprise comparing a location of a position marker on a current state image with a position marker on a planned state image, as taught by Korytov, as it would simplify determination of relative distances/locations between the current state and planned future state to assess deviation and would allow getting the plan back on track with less computing device processing power due to the presence of markers.
The combination would teach markers on a current stage and markers on an unworn/future appliance and images of them being compared as to determine whether the unworn/future appliance will fit onto the current state of the teeth to determine whether the patient progress is on-track and whether adjustment of the treatment plan is necessary.
Regarding claim 12, Salah in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the computer system of claim 11 (see rejection above). Salah teaches wherein the at least one image file is electronically transmitted to the image processing module from a network access device of the patient and wherein the at least one image file was generated by the access device of the patient ([0104] and [0320] and see claim 6; the image is acquired and sent to the dentist using a personal device such as a phone, tablet, or a personal computer).
Regarding claim 13, Salah in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the computer system of claim 11 (see rejection above). Salah teaches wherein the image processing module is further configured to determine whether the current teeth position model is compatible with the plurality of orthodontic aligners ([0100-0102]; a comparison model is determined such that the current positioning is evaluated to determine if a replacement aligner is needed).
Regarding claim 14, Salah in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the computer system of claim 11 (see rejection above). Salah teaches wherein creation of the electronic model of the rescue appliance is triggered by a determination that the current teeth position model is not compatible with the plurality of orthodontic aligners ([0100-0102]; a comparison model is determined such that the current positioning is evaluated to determine if a replacement aligner is needed).
Regarding claim 15, Salah in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the computer system of claim 11 (see rejection above). Salah teaches the system wherein the recsue appliance model generation module is configured to send the electronic model of the rescue appliance to an appliance manufacturer to initiate physical manufacture of the rescue appliance ([0572]; the replacement aligner is manufactured and so the design must be sent by the device which stores the design to be physically manufactured).
Regarding claim 16, Salah in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the computer system of claim 15 (see rejection above). Salah teaches wherein the rescue appliance is shipped to the patient after manufacture of the rescue appliance ([0572]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 2019/0125493 A1), in view of Xue et al. (US 2019/0180443 A1), Wen (US 2017/0100214 AA1), Kopelman et al. (US 2018/0206940 A1), Korytov (US 2008/0206700 A1), and further in view of Glinec et al. (US 2016/0008116 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Salah in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above). Salah teaches wherein the 2D image of the patient’s teeth while wearing the worn aligner is taken with a communication device of the patient ([0104], [0320] and claim 6; the image is taken by a commercially available device such as a phone or tablet and so it is a 2D image) but is silent to wherein the current teeth position model comprises a 3D model derived from the at least one 2D image of the patient’s teeth while wearing the worn aligner.
Glinec et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of generating models of teeth (abstract). Glinec teaches the method comprises generating 3D teeth models of the upper and lower jaws using multiple 2D images captured from different viewpoints ([0050]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Salah et al. to include using the 2D images to generate 3D models of the teeth, as taught by Glinec, as they would provide different viewpoints and angles of the mouth that can be combined to produce a 3D model for use to design accurate appliances.
Claim(s) 5-6, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 2019/0125493 A1), in view of Xue et al. (US 2019/0180443 A1), Wen (US 2017/0100214 AA1), Kopelman et al. (US 2018/0206940 A1), Korytov (US 2008/0206700 A1), and further in view of Phan et al. (US 2001/0041320 A1).
Regarding claim 5 (as best understood), Salah et al. in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above). The combination implies that the aligner worn by the patient, has deformed and hence deviated from the planned treatment and so it has shifted from the planned set of aligners. However, it is silent to explicitly the current teeth position model represents the patient’s teeth in the 2D image of the patient’s teeth, wherein the current teeth position model is located outside of an elastic working range of the plurality of aligners such that the current teeth position is not on track for use with the plurality of aligners of the orthodontic treatment plan.
Phan et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing dental appliances (abstract). Phan et al. teaches different successive appliances may have different elastic moduluses and therefore varying stiffness (abstract). Phan teaches sometimes a patient may discontinue usage of an appliance for an unprescribed period of time and so their teeth might move slightly out of a planned tooth arrangement. Phan et al. teaches a current aligner or an aligner to be used may be too rigid to be placed on the teeth and so a new more flexible appliance may be produced and incorporated in the treatment plan ([0055]). The current aligner would have an elastic modulus outside of a working range since the teeth have slightly shifted.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elastic working range of a current aligner since the teeth may have shifted slightly, requiring a different elastic working range, and so the new appliance produced will have an elastic working range to fit the model of the teeth at the state they are in.
Regarding claim 6, Salah et al. in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman, Korytov and Phan et al. teaches the method of claim 5 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the rescue appliance has greater elastic working range than the elastic working range of a subsequent aligner that is next up in the orthodontic treatment plan after the worn aligner in the 2D image of the patient’s teeth.
Phan et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing dental appliances (abstract). Phan et al. teaches different successive appliances may have different elastic moduli and therefore varying stiffness (abstract). Phan teaches sometimes a patient may discontinue usage of an appliance for an unprescribed period of time and so their teeth might move slightly out of a planned tooth arrangement. Phan et al. teaches a current aligner or an aligner to be used may be too rigid to be placed on the teeth and so a new more flexible appliance may be produced and incorporated in the treatment plan ([0055]). The current aligner would have an elastic modulus outside of a working range since the teeth have slightly shifted. The elastic working range of the new produced appliance, which is more flexible, is greater than the elastic working range of the more rigid current aligner.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elastic working range of a current aligner since the teeth may have shifted slightly, requiring a different elastic working range, and so the new appliance produced will have an elastic working range to fit the model of the teeth at the state they are in.
Regarding claim 17, Salah et al. in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the system of claim 11 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the rescue appliance has greater elastic working range than the elastic working range of a subsequent aligner that is next up in the orthodontic treatment plan after the worn aligner in the 2D image of the patient’s teeth.
Phan et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing dental appliances (abstract). Phan et al. teaches different successive appliances may have different elastic moduli and therefore varying stiffness (abstract). Phan teaches sometimes a patient may discontinue usage of an appliance for an unprescribed period of time and so their teeth might move slightly out of a planned tooth arrangement. Phan et al. teaches a current aligner or an aligner to be used may be too rigid to be placed on the teeth and so a new more flexible appliance may be produced and incorporated in the treatment plan ([0055]). The current aligner would have an elastic modulus outside of a working range since the teeth have slightly shifted.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elastic working range of a current aligner since the teeth may have shifted slightly, requiring a different elastic working range, and so the new appliance produced will have an elastic working range to fit the model of the teeth at the state they are in.
Regarding claim 18, Salah et al. in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the system of claim 17 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the elastic working range of the rescue appliance is 1.5- 3 times greater than the elastic working range of the subsequent aligner.
Phan et al. teaches the elastic modulus of the aligners may be varied within a range from (0.5 GPa to 5 GPa) ([0021]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the elastic working range of the rescue appliance be 1.5-3 times greater than the elastic working range of the subsequent aligner, as it would be varied based on the required forces needed to move the teeth to a desired position at a treatment stage and hence varying the flexibility of successive appliances can vary along a wide range.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the elastic working range of a rescue aligner since the teeth may have shifted slightly, requiring a different elastic working range, and so the new appliance produced will have an elastic working range to fit the model of the teeth at the state they are in and will be different than a subsequent aligner as the rescue appliance needs to exert different forces to bring the teeth to be in a position ready (on-track) for the subsequent aligner.
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 2019/0125493 A1), in view of Xue et al. (US 2019/0180443 A1), Wen (US 2017/0100214 AA1), Kopelman et al. (US 2018/0206940 A1), Korytov (US 2008/0206700 A1), and further in view of Raby et al. (US 2006/0073436 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Salah et al. in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to explicitly wherein sending the electronic model of the rescue appliance to the aligner manufacturer is triggered by an electronic approval message sent by a care provider.
Raby et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of virtual planning of an orthodontic treatment (abstract). Raby teaches the method includes creation of a treatment plan and the orthodontic practitioner inputs his or her approval of the prescription/plan into the computing device and sends the response to the manufacturing facility via network for the device to be produced ([0021]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Salah et al. to include the practitioner to approve and send the approval to the manufacturing facility for the appliance to be fabricated, as taught by Raby et al., such that the design can be approved by a professional prior to being produced.
Regarding claim 19, Salah in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the computer system of claim 11 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the rescue appliance model generation module is configured to send the electronic model of the rescue appliance to the aligner manufacturer after receiving an electronic approval message sent by a care provider network access device.
Raby et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of virtual planning of an orthodontic treatment (abstract). Raby teaches the method includes creation of a treatment plan and the orthodontic practitioner inputs his or her approval of the prescription/plan into the computing device and sends the response to the manufacturing facility via network for the device to be produced ([0021]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Salah et al. to include the practitioner to approve and send the approval to the manufacturing facility for the appliance to be fabricated, as taught by Raby et al., such that the design can be approved by a professional prior to being produced.
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 2019/0125493 A1), in view of Xue et al. (US 2019/0180443 A1), Wen (US 2017/0100214 AA1), Kopelman et al. (US 2018/0206940 A1), Korytov (US 2008/0206700 A1), Raby et al. (US 2006/0073436 A1), and further in view of Kopelman (ES 2639571 T3).
Regarding claim 10, Salah et al. in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman, Korytov and Raby et al. teaches the method of claim 9 (see rejection above), but is silent to the orthodontist evaluates in a remote checkup the requirement for a replacement appliance and then modifies it if needed.
Kopelman teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of using dental models to create dental devices. Kopelman teaches the method includes using a computer system to create virtual models and manipulate them. Kopelman teaches that while patient’s examination is usually performed in a dental clinic by the dentist, it could be connected through a means or communication network like the internet (pp. 11 para 3).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Salah to include conducting the dental examination via communication means like the internet, as taught by Kopelman, as it would allow the method to be fully remote and avoid any inconveniences or unnecessary time being wasted during in person assessments.
Salah in view of Raby and Kopelman teaches wherein the care provider provides the electronic approval message after conducting a remote examination of the patient via the access device of the patient.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Salah et al. to include the practitioner to approve and send the approval to the manufacturing facility for the appliance to be fabricated, as taught by Raby et al., such that the design can be approved by a professional prior to being produced.
Regarding claim 20, Salah et al. in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman, Korytov and Raby et al. teaches the computer system of claim 19 (see rejection above), but is silent to the orthodontist evaluates in a remote checkup the requirement for a replacement appliance and then modifies it if needed. Kopelman teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of using dental models to create dental devices. Kopelman teaches the method includes using a computer system to create virtual models and manipulate them. Kopelman teaches that while patient’s examination is usually performed in a dental clinic by the dentist, it could be connected through a means of communication network like the internet (pp. 11 para 3).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Salah to include conducting the dental examination via communication means like the internet, as taught by Kopelman, as it would allow the method to be fully remote and avoid any inconveniences or unnecessary time being wasted during in person assessments.
Salah in view of Raby and Kopelman teaches wherein the care provider provides the electronic approval message after conducting a remote examination of the patient via the access device of the patient.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Salah et al. to include the practitioner to approve and send the approval to the manufacturing facility for the appliance to be fabricated, as taught by Raby et al., such that the design can be approved by a professional prior to being produced.
Claim(s) 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 2019/0125493 A1), in view of Xue et al. (US 2019/0180443 A1), Wen (US 2017/0100214 AA1), Kopelman et al. (US 2018/0206940 A1), Korytov (US 2008/0206700 A1), and further in view of Shanjani et al. (US 2019/0231477 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Salah in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the computer system of claim 11 (see rejection above). It is implied from the combination that looking at deviation includes observing stresses applied to the appliance worn, however the references do not explicitly teach observing the stresses in the worn aligner to determine the relative teeth position.
Shanjani et al. teaches systems and methods in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic appliances (abstract). Shanjani teaches detecting and evaluating a state of the orthodontic device may be used to refine a treatment plan ([0077]). In one case, strains and stresses of the aligner being worn may be observed and used to indicate that a tooth, group of teeth and/or palatal region are not moving in response to the force being applied to the appliance and so modifications to the treatment may be made by providing new appliances that have positions and orientations that address the issue or continuing to wear the appliance until the desired positions are achieved ([0077]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the stresses of the worn appliance be observed and considered, as taught by Shanjani et al., such that it would provide information for determining next action of the treatment plan (i.e., whether longer time is needed with the current appliance or a new appliance to provide different forces is necessary).
Regarding claim 24, Salah in view of Xue, Wen, Kopelman and Korytov teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above). It is implied from the combination that looking at deviation includes observing stresses applied to the worn aligner, however the references do not explicitly teach observing the stresses in the worn appliance to determine the relative teeth position.
Shanjani et al. teaches systems and methods in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic appliances (abstract). Shanjani teaches detecting and evaluating a state of the orthodontic device may be used to refine a treatment plan ([0077]). In one case, strains and stresses of the aligner being worn may be observed and used to indicate that a tooth, group of teeth and/or palatal region are not moving in response to the force being applied to the appliance and so modifications to the treatment may be made by providing new appliances that have positions and orientations that address the issue or continuing to wear the appliance until the desired positions are achieved ([0077]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the stresses of the worn appliance be observed and considered, as taught by Shanjani et al., such that it would provide information for determining next action of the treatment plan (i.e., whether longer time is needed with the current appliance or a new appliance to provide different forces is necessary).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2025 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered and overcome the rejection of the previous office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-20, 22, 24 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
LINA FARAJ
Examiner
Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 8/6/2025
Prosecution Insights