DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to a reply filed 26 June 2026, on an application filed 12 July 2022, which is a continuation of an application filed on 12 November 2020, and is a continuation in part of an application that is a continuation in part of an application that claims priority to a provisional application filed 30 November 2015.
All of the material in the present specification directed to orthodontic-related information has a priority date of 12 July 2022.
The Office notes that the amendment fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121. For example, claim 14 was previously filed but contains the descripter “(new)”. As a courtesy to the applicant, the amendment has been entered. However, the Applicant is reminded that future correspondence must comply with 37 CFR 1.121.
Claims 11 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 11-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 11-14 present novel material; accordingly, the prior art rejection has been removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation a calculated index value calculated from said central server from said compliance feedback data and said reporting data, said calculated index further adjusted based upon frequency of data received from said second computing device twice. It is unclear how to interpret this limitation, as the two recitations are not distinct from each other.
Claims 11 and 13 recite the limitation related to: a fourth image captured with said camera of said second computing device, said second image associated with said patient's oral structure without wearing an orthodontal correction device at said second date. However, the second image is already indicated as being associated with said patient's oral structure without wearing an orthodontal correction device at said first date in the second image limitation. It is unclear how to interpret this limitation, as the two recitations are not distinct from each other. Presumably, Applicant intended to recite a fourth image captured with said camera of said second computing device, said fourth .
To the extent that other claims rely on claims that are rejected under 35 USC 112 and fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims they rely on, those other claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims they rely on. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 11-14 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 11-12 are drawn to a prescription feedback and communications system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 13-14 are drawn to a computer-implemented method of correcting a patient's teeth alignment, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 11 recites: A prescription feedback and communications system comprising:
a central server, a first computing device, and a second computing device, each including a respective central processing unit (CPU), data storage, graphical user interface (GUI), a camera, and a connection to a computer network;
said first computing device associated with a specialist;
said second computing device associated with a client and including a software application stored on a second data storage and accessible by a second CPU;
a prescription generated by said first computing device, said prescription comprising at least a schedule for transitioning from a first orthodontal correction device to a second orthodontal correction device, wherein said first orthodontal correction device is configured to provide a first correction to said client's teeth, and said second orthodontal correction device is configured to provide a second correction to said client's teeth;
wherein said second orthodontal correction device is intended to succeed said first orthodontal correction device as part of said prescription;
said prescription sent from said first computing device through said computer network to said central server;
a notification sent from said central server through said computer network to said second computing device indicating said prescription has been received at said central server;
compliance feedback data generated with said second computing device and sent to said central server and to said first computing device;
reporting data generated with said second computing device, wherein said reporting data comprises a selected value amongst a predetermined range, said reporting data sent from said second computing device to said central server and said first computing device;
a calculated index value calculated from said central server from said compliance feedback data and said reporting data, said calculated index further adjusted based upon frequency of data received from said second computing device;
a calculated index value calculated from said central server from said compliance feedback data and said reporting data, said calculated index further adjusted based upon frequency of data received from said second computing device;
said calculated index value comprising a numeric value;
said calculated index value accessible with said first computing device;
a first image captured with said camera of said second computing device, said first image associated with said client's oral structure wearing said first orthodontal correction device at a first date;
a second image captured with said camera of said second computing device, said second image associated with said patient's oral structure without wearing an orthodontal correction device at said first date;
a third image captured with said camera of said second computing device, said third image associated with said patient's oral structure wearing said first orthodontal correction device at a second date;
a fourth image captured with said camera of said second computing device, said second image associated with said patient's oral structure without wearing an orthodontal correction device at said second date;
wherein said first, second, third, and fourth images are delivered to said central server;
said calculated index configured to be modified based upon a comparison by said central server of said first image, said second image, said third image, and said fourth image and comparing said first image, said second image, said third image, and said fourth image against previous patient images stored at said central server and with one-another to measure a level of adjustment over time;
; and
wherein a determination of whether to provide instruction to transition from said first orthodontal correction device to said second orthodontal correction device is made by said central server based at least partially upon said calculated index.
Claim 13 provides similar limitations to claim 1 as well as the following:
said compliance feedback related to a duration said at least one orthodontal correction device is worn.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case the reporting on compliance for a given treatment), for example a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claim 13 is identical as the abstract idea for claim 11, because the only difference between claims 11 and 13 is that claim 11 recites a system, whereas claim 13 recites a method.
Dependent claims 12 and 14 include other limitations, for example claims 12 and 14 provides further details on comparing images, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Hence dependent claims 12 and 14 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 11 and 13.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 11 and 13 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the structural components of the computer, the cameras and the network, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea; and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language directed to the orthodontal correction device, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of dental healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application – for example the data gathering/accessing and notification transmission (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 12 and 14 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the generation of the second orthodontal correction device), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 11 and 13, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 11 and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the structural components of the computers and cameras, and netowrk), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs 28-31 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the structural components of the computer, cameras and input devices and interface) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives usage data, processes the usage data, and transmits a command to the dispensing device based on the processed usage data to the dispensing device over a network, for example the Internet.
Dependent claims 12 and 14 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 11 and 13, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the generation of the second orthodontal correction device), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 11-14 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed 26 June 2026 concerning the rejection of claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101, 103 and 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
The Office agrees with Applicant concerning the 35 U.S.C. 112(a); accordingly, this rejection has been removed.
Applicant has not addressed the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. Please see above for further details.
Applicant arguments filed 26 June 2026 concerning the rejection of claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that the claims comprise statutory material because:
A. The claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they recite physical devices, such as cameras and orthodontic correction devices.
B. The claims as a whole integrates the identified abstract idea into a practical application because i. they effect a particular treatment for a medical condition, herein orthodontal treatment and ii. They use a particular machine that is integral to the claims, herein the various recited devices, such as cameras and orthodontic correction devices.
The Office disagrees. Please see the statutory rejection of the claims, issued above, wherein the claims are shown to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding A. and Bii., the various physical devices are not part of the identified abstract idea and their recitation does not amount to significantly more, as shown above.
Regarding Bi., the particular treatment of the claimed invention amounts to a comparison of a patient’s mouth photos over time, which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the orthodontal treatment space.
Accordingly, the rejection is upheld.
Conclusion
Unused but cited relevant prior art includes:
Kitching et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2008/0305453 A1), which discloses a treatment progress tracking and recalibration system and method for tracking a patient’s progress through an orthodontal correction plan.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
14 August 2026
Prosecution Insights