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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Line 5 should end with a “;” instead of a “:”.
Claims 1, 13
The limitation, “automatically modifying, during the simulation, the treatment plan by the processor in response to the predicted effects of adjacent teeth” is redundant with the previous limitation of “automatically modifying, during the simulation, the treatment plan by at least one of…”, by being a generic form of the amended, more narrow limitation. Examiner recommends removing the last limitation.
Claim 2
Line 5, “a braces model” should be “the braces model”, as claim 1 defines “a braces model” in line 10.
Claim 9
Lines 1-4 contain the deleted limitation from claim 1 of “analyzing the color map during simulation”. Examiner recommends modifying the language of this claim to match the language of claim 1, “predicting, using information of the color map during the simulation…”.
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 1-2, 5, 7, 9-13, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Determination as to whether the claims are directed to a statutory category as specified in 35 U.S.C. 101 (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-12, 14 and 15 recite(s) a method of designing transparent braces, with the method steps comprising: "obtaining clinical data"; "analyzing clinical data to diagnose a dental condition"; "predicting a treatment result", and "modifying the treatment plan in response to the predicted effect". These methods fall into the category of a “process” (MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 13 recite(s) an apparatus for designing transparent braces comprising: "one or more imaging devices"; "a processor"; "an output device". This apparatus falls into the category of a “machine” (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A Prong 1 – Determination as to whether the claims recite a Judicial Exception including an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP 2106.04)
Regarding claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to a mental process, concepts capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations and judgments. The step of “obtaining clinical data” as recited in claim 1 is performed by an orthodontist mentally by observing the patient’s teeth and relative tooth positions. Linking of this mental process to a technological environment, the one or more imaging devices, does not constitute the abstract idea amounting to more. Similarly, the step of “analyzing the clinical data to diagnose a dental condition” is performed by an orthodontist when they mentally evaluate the dentition of the patient for malocclusions, tooth overlap, and general tooth misalignment. The subsequent step of “predicting a treatment result by performing a simulation according to the treatment plan…including an effect of adjacent teeth” may be performed mentally by the orthodontist. The orthodontist can utilize patient clinical data to perform a mental simulation, including envisioning and evaluating how the movement of adjacent tooth will affect a tooth to be moved. The additional steps associated with the predicting of the treatment result, providing a color map, classifying the difference region based on maximum tooth movement, and analyzing the color map are also mental processes that an orthodontist performs in the evaluation of a proposed treatment plan. The method step of “modifying the treatment plan” is an abstract idea performed by the orthodontist as part of establishing the treatment plan. The orthodontist can make a judgement based on their expertise for which parts of the treatment plan can be modified based on adjacent tooth effects. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, claim 1, as a whole, can be performed by the human mind or in combination with the assistance of a physical aid. Furthermore, there is no limitation in this claim which inhibits a human from performing the disclosed method steps (refer to MPEP 22106.04 (a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 2, the claimed “generating a tooth model”, “generating a setup model”, and “generating a braces model” are methods of displaying the data of claim 1. Claim 2 merely links the abstract ideas of claim 1 to a technological environment via visualization.
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 7, the claimed “quantifying a difference” is another mental process related to observation and evaluation. An orthodontist is capable of “quantifying the difference between a tooth and transparent braces” mentally and this mental action has been performed by orthodontists prior to implementation of software to perform such actions. Similarly, an orthodontist is capable of forming a color map and using information from the color map in forming observations for tooth movement.
Regarding claims 9-10, these claims further define the mental process of evaluating or analyzing data based on the quantified difference, therefore not making the original abstract idea less abstract.
Regarding dependent claim 11, the claimed “predicting of data from an initial to final treatment step” is another mental process that an orthodontist is capable of performing. Claim 11 does not provide for any additional steps that cannot be performed mentally.
Regarding dependent claim 12, the claimed “modifying of the treatment plan automatically” does not amount to more than the generally linking of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment for performing a mental process on a computer.
Regarding claim 13, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea. The claimed “obtaining of clinical data”, “analyzing of clinical data”, “predicting a treatment by quantifying differences”, “constructing a color map” and “modifying the treatment” are mental processes related to evaluating data. Linking of the abstract ideas to a technological environment such as the apparatus and output device does not constitute the abstract idea amounting to more.
Regarding dependent claims 14-15, the claimed method steps further define the process of “obtaining” data, which further defines this same step from claim 1, an extra-solution data gathering step that does not amount to more than the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Determination as to whether the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons highlighted below:
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-13, and 14-15 the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The “imaging devices”, “processor” and “output device” recited in claim 13 are recited generically and therefore represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. Additionally, these limitations can be viewed as doing nothing more than linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. The physical nature of a “imaging devices”, “processor” and “output device” does not affect the analysis. The display of data on an “output device” or “imaging device” is insignificant extra-solution activity and does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood and conventional. Furthermore, the method steps as recited in claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-13, and 14-15 of “obtaining” and “analyzing”, are a data gathering step, with the additional steps of “establishing a treatment plan”, “predicting a treatment result”, “modifying the treatment plan” and “quantifying a difference” as steps of data manipulation according to mathematical algorithms. The “generating” steps of claim 2 are simply a transformation of data. The display of data on an output device for “certain visual information” such as the color map of claims 1, 9-10, and 13 is further data manipulation based on mathematical algorithms. Linking the data manipulation to a generic computer does not amount to use or application of the judicial exception in a meaningful way. For at least these reasons and as claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-13, and 14-15 do not recite additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the abstract mental processes identified for claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-13, and 14-15 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B – Determination as to whether the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-13, and 14-15, as set forth above with respect to Step 2A Prong One, the claim method steps are all capable of being performed mentally and represent nothing more than concepts related to performing observations, evaluations, and judgements, which fall within the judicial exception. The claimed steps of displaying “visual information” in claims 1, 9-10, and 13 requires nothing more than a generic computer processor. The additional elements of “one or more imaging devices”, “processor” and “output device” in claim 13 are generic devices well known in the art for performing orthodontic simulation. The disclosure does not describe additional features to suggest these devices are beyond a generic component for the apparatus. Additionally, the design method is not disclosed as improving the manner in which the apparatus operates. Mere recitation of generic conventional processing 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 inputting data (“obtaining”) and processing data (“analyzing”, “establishing”, “predicting”, “modifying”, “generating”, “quantifying”) with a standard computer.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Additional elements of claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-13, and 14-15 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims set forth do not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine and they do not require that the method particularly transforms a particular article. When viewed as a combination, the identified additional elements set forth a process of analyzing information of specific content and are not directed to any particularly asserted inventive technology for performing these functions. The disclosure and claims do not require anything beyond a generic computer to obtain and analyze the data according to mathematical algorithms. Therefore, the claimed method and apparatus fall within 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, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shojaei et al. (US 20210196429 A1), herein referred to as Shojaei, in view of Somasundaram et al. (US 20160004811 A1), herein referred to as Somasundaram.
Regarding claim 1, Shojaei discloses a transparent braces design method (900) performed by a transparent braces design apparatus (130) (refer to Paragraphs [0044], [0089]), the method (900) comprising:
obtaining clinical data of a patient for a digital orthodontic treatment from one or more imaging devices (refer to Paragraph [0045]; the initial arrangement is determined from a mold or scan of the patient’s teeth);
analyzing the clinical data by the processor to diagnose a dental condition (refer to Paragraphs [0044], [0046]; the method (900) is performed by a data processing system; the method (900) executed by the processor then calculates a target arrangement of teeth based on orthodontic principles, which equates to identifying misaligned teeth for realignment in the target arrangement or diagnosing a dental condition of malocclusion):
establishing, by the processor, a treatment plan for tooth movement according to a result of diagnosing the dental condition (910; refer to Paragraphs [0044]- [0045]; a movement path is determined to move the teeth from an initial to final arrangement);
predicting a treatment result by executing, on the processor, a simulation that quantifies a difference between a tooth model and a braces model to generate a difference region between the tooth and the transparent braces (refer to Paragraphs [0035], [0060], Fig. 3; the force validation engine (138) works with the aligner mesh modeling engine (136) to predict adjusted tooth positions by generating a displacement field (difference region) between the patient’s teeth and an aligner stage as shown in Fig. 3),
the treatment result including an effect of adjacent teeth on a tooth to be moved within transparent braces to be manufactured (refer to Paragraph [0047]; the end points of each movement path are determined to avoid collision of teeth),
wherein the predicting of the treatment result comprises:
providing a displacement map that visually represents the difference region (refer to Paragraphs [0036], [0039], Fig. 3; a displacement field is modeled),
classifying the difference region as a preset reference range on the basis of a maximum tooth movement range for each orthodontic stage (refer to Paragraph [0047]; each of the tooth paths represented by the displacement field are calculated based on threshold limits of linear and rotational translation),
predicting, using information of the displacement map during the simulation, (refer to Paragraph [0047]; the displacement field represents the segmented tooth path, where each tooth path segment is designed to prevent collisions, thereby “predicting” and adjusting for potential collisions based on each tooth’s motion or positional changes),
automatically modifying, during the simulation, the treatment plan by at least one of changing a direction of tooth movement to prevent a collision between teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0047], [0085]; the movement paths are automatically optimized by the processor to form a tooth path without collisions, where the tooth path is a series of translations or rotations; thus, forming a path without collision requires automatically modifying or changing translations or rotations to form the optimized path) or deformation of a tooth, or reducing the maximum tooth movement range for an orthodontic stage when the maximum tooth movement range is exceeded and a collision between teeth or deformation of the tooth would occur, and
automatically modifying, during the simulation, the treatment plan by the processor in response to the predicted effects of adjacent teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0047], [0085]; the movement paths are automatically optimized by the processor to form a tooth path without collisions).
Shojaei does not disclose providing a color map that visually represents the difference region (displacement field as shown in Fig. 3), and subsequently using information of the color map during the simulation.
Somasundaram discloses a method of detecting tooth wear in the analogous art of digital tooth modeling (refer to Paragraph [0021]). The tooth wear is modeled as a displacement vector or difference region, where the displacement vectors are then modeled as a color map that visually represents the difference region (refer to Paragraph [0067], Figs. 11-12; a heat map of displacement is shown, where the color of each vertex represents the displacement of the tooth). The color map is beneficial for indicating the extent or severity of the displacement (refer to Paragraph [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the displacement field (Fig. 3) of Shojaei with a color map as taught by Somasundaram in order to provide an easy means of indicating the extent of the displacement (refer to Paragraph [0067], Figs. 11-12).
Further, by modifying the displacement field (Fig. 3) of Shojaei with a color map, the combination of Shojaei and Somasundaram teaches using information of the color map during the simulation, as Shojaei alone teaches predicting, using information of the displacement map, effects of adjacent teeth (refer to Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 2, Shojaei and Somasundaram disclose the method of claim 1; Shojaei discloses wherein the establishing of the treatment plan comprises:
generating a tooth model of the patient (refer to Paragraph [0045]; the 3D image of the initial arrangement is determined by the treatment plan gathering device (132));
generating a setup model in which the tooth model is moved to a target position according to a tooth movement plan (refer to Paragraph [0046] the target arrangement of the teeth is calculated from orthodontic principles); and
generating a braces model for moving the tooth model to the setup model refer to Paragraphs [0034], [0050]; the aligner mesh modeling engine (136) generates 3D mesh models of the aligners).
3. (Canceled)
4. (Canceled)
Regarding claim 5, Shojaei and Somasundaram disclose the method of claim 1; Shojaei discloses wherein classifying the difference region comprises measuring a horizontal length of an exposed portion of the tooth or the transparent braces when the tooth overlaps the transparent braces to be worn (refer to Paragraphs [0029], [0036], [0039], annotated Fig. 3 below; the displacement field is modeled between an aligner (830) and the patient’s teeth (810 or 820); each displacement vector has six degrees of freedom, which includes a horizontal component as shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
6. (Canceled)
Regarding claim 7, Shojaei and Somasundaram disclose the method of claim 1; Shojaei discloses wherein when the quantified difference is a positive (+) value, it is determined that a force will be applied to the tooth by the transparent braces, and the force applied to the tooth by the transparent braces increases as the quantified difference increases (refer to Paragraphs [0064]-[0065], Fig. 6B; Examiner understands a “positive value” as any displacement vector where the tooth is outside the aligner as shown above; the displacement field vectors are used to determine the associated forces at each node, where the forces represent the magnitude of forces to move teeth by the aligner; by definition, the larger the vector is, the greater the magnitude, and force is proportional to displacement, therefore a longer displacement vector means a greater force).
8. (Canceled)
Regarding claim 10, Shojaei and Somasundaram disclose the method of claim 1; Shojaei discloses wherein analyzing the displacement map during simulation comprises predicting, based on the displacement map, that a position of a normal tooth is likely to change during orthodontic treatment when certain visual information is displayed on the normal tooth and an adjacent tooth, which is to be moved, within a preset distance from the normal tooth (refer to Paragraphs [0047], [0061]-[0062]; as Applicant does not define a “normal tooth”, Examiner understands a normal tooth as any of the teeth represented in a patient’s dentition; the displacement fields represent the movement of a tooth between stages of treatment, where the movements are predetermined based on not colliding, thereby not being moved into a distance of zero from a “normal tooth”; the displacement vector indicates or predicts a change in position of a “normal tooth” between stages).
Based on the modification from claim 1, Shojaei does not disclose providing a color map that visually represents the difference region (displacement field as shown in Fig. 3).
Somasundaram discloses modeling a displacement vector or difference region, as a color map that visually represents the difference region (refer to Paragraph [0067], Figs. 11-12; a heat map of displacement is shown, where the color of each vertex represents the displacement of the tooth). The color map is beneficial for indicating the extent or severity of the displacement (refer to Paragraph [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the displacement field (Fig. 3) of Shojaei with a color map as taught by Somasundaram in order to provide an easy means of indicating the extent of the displacement (refer to Paragraph [0067], Figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 11, Shojaei and Somasundaram disclose the method of claim 1; Shojaei discloses wherein, the predicting of the treatment result comprises predicting an effect of adjacent teeth for each orthodontic stage from an initial state of the tooth of the patient to a final setup state in which the orthodontic treatment is completed (refer to Paragraph [0047]; each tooth path segment corresponds to a stage of treatment, where each path segment is calculated for collision avoidance, thereby “predicting” and adjusting for potential collisions).
Regarding claim 12, Shojaei and Somasundaram disclose the method of claim 1; Shojaei discloses wherein, wherein automatically modifying the treatment plan comprises:
suggesting a direction of treatment by providing information for automatically modifying a part of the treatment plan that is predicted to result in a problem according to the prediction of the treatment result (refer to Paragraphs [0036], [0066], [0073]-[0074], Fig. 8; the force validation method (1300) is performed according to the same method (1000) disclosed as part of claim 1 (900); the force validation process (1000/1300) automatically adjusts the appliance geometry until the modeled forces match the predicted forces to prevent damage or excessive pain to the patient, displaying the rendered force models to the user for modification; the appliance geometry represents the end points of the defined segments calculated to avoid collisions) and
establishing a final treatment plan in response to the suggested direction of treatment (refer to Paragraph [0074], Fig. 8; once the forces are in a desired range, the appliances are fabricated as part of the final treatment plan).
Regarding claim 13, Shojaei discloses a transparent braces design apparatus (1500; refer to Fig. 12) comprising:
one or more imaging devices (1525) configured to obtain clinical data of a patient for a digital orthodontic purpose (refer to Paragraph [0092]; the camera (1525) facilitates capturing of patient’s dentition);
a processor (1502) configured to:
execute a simulation that quantifies a difference between a tooth model and a braces model to generate a difference region between the tooth and the transparent braces (refer to Paragraphs [0035], [0060], Fig. 3; the force validation engine (138) works with the aligner mesh modeling engine (136) to predict adjusted tooth positions by generating a displacement field (difference region) between the patient’s teeth and a modeled aligner as shown in Fig. 3),
provide a displacement map that visually represents the difference region (refer to Paragraphs [0036], [0039], Fig. 3; a displacement field is modeled),
classify the difference region as a preset reference range on the basis of a maximum tooth movement range for each orthodontic stage (refer to Paragraph [0047]; each of the tooth paths represented by the displacement field are calculated based on threshold limits of linear and rotational translation),
display visual information corresponding to the identified reference range (refer to Paragraph [0036]; the displacement fields are rendered on a screen for viewing by the dental professional, where the displacement vectors represent the motion subject to the identified thresholds)
predict, using information of the displacement map during the simulation, effects of adjacent teeth including potential collisions and positional changes of neighboring teeth during orthodontic treatment (refer to Paragraph [0047]; the displacement field represents the segmented tooth path, where each tooth path segment is designed to prevent collisions, thereby “predicting” and adjusting for potential collisions based on each tooth’s motion or positional changes), and
automatically modifying, during the simulation, the treatment plan by at least one of changing a direction of tooth movement to prevent a collision between teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0047], [0085]; the movement paths are automatically optimized by the processor to form a tooth path without collisions, where the tooth path is a series of translations or rotations; thus, forming a path without collision requires automatically modifying or changing translations or rotations to form the optimized path) or deformation of a tooth, or reducing the maximum tooth movement range for an orthodontic stage when the maximum tooth movement range is exceeded and a collision between teeth or deformation of the tooth would occur, and
automatically modify, during the simulation, the treatment plan based on the predicted effects (refer to Paragraphs [0036], [0047], [0057], [0085]; the movement paths are automatically calculated by the processor to form a tooth path without collisions) and output the modified treatment plan (940; refer to Paragraph [0057]; the treatment plan is output for fabrication); and
an output device (1518) connected to the processor (1502) and operable to visually display the simulation results and the modified treatment plans for user interaction (refer to Paragraph [0090]).
Shojaei does not disclose providing a color map that visually represents the difference region (displacement field as shown in Fig. 3), and subsequently using information of the color map during the simulation.
Somasundaram discloses a method of detecting tooth wear in the analogous art of digital tooth modeling (refer to Paragraph [0021]). The tooth wear is modeled as a displacement vector or difference region, where the displacement vectors are then modeled as a color map that visually represents the difference region (refer to Paragraph [0067], Figs. 11-12; a heat map of displacement is shown, where the color of each vertex represents the displacement of the tooth). The color map is beneficial for indicating the extent or severity of the displacement (refer to Paragraph [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the displacement field (Fig. 3) of Shojaei with a color map as taught by Somasundaram in order to provide an easy means of indicating the extent of the displacement (refer to Paragraph [0067], Figs. 11-12).
Further, by modifying the displacement field (Fig. 3) of Shojaei with a color map, the combination of Shojaei and Somasundaram teaches using information of the color map during the simulation, as Shojaei alone teaches predicting, using information of the displacement map, effects of adjacent teeth (refer to Paragraph [0047]).
14. (Canceled)
Claim(s) 9 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shojaei et al. (US 20210196429 A1), herein referred to as Shojaei, in view of Somasundaram et al. (US 20160004811 A1), herein referred to as Somasundaram, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sachdeva et al. (US 20040197727 A1), herein referred to as Sachdeva.
Regarding claim 9, Shojaei and Somasundaram disclose the method of claim 1; Shojaei discloses wherein analyzing the displacement map during simulation comprises predicting, based on the displacement map, that a collision is likely to occur (refer to Paragraph [0047]; Examiner understands this limitation as aligning with the limitation of claim 1 which states, “predicting, using information of the displacement map during the simulation, ”; the displacement field represents the segmented tooth path, where each tooth path segment is designed to prevent collisions, thereby “predicting” and adjusting for potential collisions based on each tooth’s motion or positional changes).
Shojaei does not disclose providing a color map that visually represents the difference region (displacement field as shown in Fig. 3).
Based on the modification from claim 1, Shojaei does not disclose providing a color map that visually represents the difference region (displacement field as shown in Fig. 3); however,
Somasundaram discloses modeling a displacement vector or difference region, as a color map that visually represents the difference region (refer to Paragraph [0067], Figs. 11-12; a heat map of displacement is shown, where the color of each vertex represents the displacement of the tooth). The color map is beneficial for indicating the extent or severity of the displacement (refer to Paragraph [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the displacement field (Fig. 3) of Shojaei with a color map as taught by Somasundaram in order to provide an easy means of indicating the extent of the displacement (refer to Paragraph [0067], Figs. 11-12).
Neither Shojaei or Somasundaram disclose predicting, based on the color map, that a collision is likely to occur between teeth during orthodontic treatment when certain visual information is displayed between two adjacent teeth to be moved.
Sachdeva discloses an orthodontic treatment planning method in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0003]), wherein analyzing the color map during simulation comprises predicting, based on the color map, that a collision is likely to occur between teeth during orthodontic treatment when certain visual information is displayed between two adjacent teeth to be moved (refer to Paragraph [0317]; during the treatment plan simulation, the contact points are marked as red on the color map; the red color is assigned based on the distance between adjacent teeth being less than a threshold such that collision is likely to occur). The red region alerts the user of the collision (refer to Paragraph [0317]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of analyzing the color map as taught by Shojaei and Somasundaram with using visual information between teeth to indicate a collision is likely to occur as taught by Sachdeva in order to alert the orthodontist to the problem (refer to Paragraph [0317]).
(New) Regarding claims 15-16, Shojaei and Somasundaram disclose the method of claim 1; Shojaei discloses wherein obtaining the clinical data comprises:
obtaining skeletal data as 2D skeletal data that includes at least one of X-ray data or a lateral cephalogram (refer to Paragraph [0045]; the initial arrangement is determined from X-ray imaging); and
obtaining dental data by imaging an inside of the patient's oral cavity using a 3D intra- oral scanner (refer to Paragraphs [0045], [0084]; the initial arrangement is determined from directly scanning the intraoral cavity).
Neither Shojaei or Somasundaram disclose the X-ray data being posteroanterior (PA) or lateral cephalogram, and further obtaining the clinical data comprises obtaining facial data for identifying the patient's facial structure information, and wherein, to represent the teeth when the patient opens his or her mouth, the facial data comprises facial data when the patient is smiling or a result of performing matching on the facial data.
Sachdeva discloses an orthodontic treatment planning method in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0003]), where obtaining patient data consists of 2D radiographic images, which includes a lateral cephalogram (refer to Paragraphs [0005], [0217], Fig. 56). This imaging method allows for complete 2D cephalometric analysis as part of the treatment planning process (refer to Paragraph [0146]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of obtaining data as taught by Shojaei and Somasundaram with obtaining a lateral cephalogram as taught by Sachdeva in order to allow for complete 2D cephalometric analysis as part of the treatment planning process (refer to Paragraph [0146]).
Sachdeva further discloses obtaining the clinical data comprises obtaining facial data for identifying the patient's facial structure information (refer to Paragraph [0078], Fig. 2; a 3D scanning of the face is completed with a laser), and
wherein, to represent the teeth when the patient opens his or her mouth, the facial data comprises facial data when the patient is smiling or a result of performing matching on the facial data (refer to Paragraphs [0053], [0086], Figs. 7, 22; the 3D tooth model is combined or matched with the morphable face model (102) to produce a combined virtual patient model (34)). This allows real time visualization of the treatment plan and desired smile (refer to Paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of obtaining data as taught by Shojaei and Somasundaram with obtaining facial data when the patient is smiling as taught by Sachdeva in order to allow for real time visualization of the treatment plan and desired smile (refer to Paragraph [0056]).
Response to Arguments
The outstanding specification objection is withdrawn in view of the newly submitted claim amendments (1, 13).
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While Applicant asserts that the claims are “a computer-implemented control loop”. The computer implementation of a the method does not amount to more than the abstract idea. The method is implemented on a computer, but does not improve the manner in which the computer operates. Examiner recommends adding a physical implementation step, such as a fabrication or manufacturing step to overcome this rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 9-13, and 15-16 filed 01/12/2026 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. The new rejection relies on Shojaei as the primary reference, in view of Somasundaram and Sachdeva.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-7:00 EST.
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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772