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 § 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 24-35, 37-43 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.
Regarding Claims 24 and 42:
Step 1 – The claim is drawn to “method for generating multiple orthodontic treatment options” and is therefore a process.
Step 2A – The claim is drawn to an abstract idea. The abstract idea being a mental process. The limitations of:
• receiving a digital 3D model of teeth in malocclusion
• generating a plurality of different orthodontic treatment plans
• displaying a visual indication of each of the plurality of different orthodontic treatment plans
• providing a user interface
• dynamically monitoring a display and synchronizing user adjustments
are all data manipulation steps and can be performed by a human mind (i.e. a mental process).
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application.
Step 2B- There are no further elements in the claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). The steps as disclosed are performed on a generic use computer (i.e. judicial exception (abstract idea). These dependent claims merely recite further specifics of the data being processed in the independent claim or they recite further data identification and selection steps which themselves are an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 39:
Step 1 – The claim is drawn to “a system for generating multiple orthodontic treatment options” and is therefore an apparatus.
Step 2A – The claim is drawn to an abstract idea. The abstract idea being a mental process. The limitations of:
• receiving a digital 3D model of teeth in malocclusion
• generating a plurality of different orthodontic treatment plans
• displaying a visual indication of each of the plurality of different orthodontic treatment plans
• providing a user interface
• dynamically monitoring a display state and synchronizing user adjustments
are all data manipulation steps and can be performed by a human mind (i.e. a mental process).
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application.
Step 2B- There are no further elements in the claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). The steps as disclosed are performed on a generic use computer (i.e. judicial exception (abstract idea). These dependent claims merely recite further specifics of the data being processed in the independent claim or they recite further data identification and selection steps which themselves are an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 25-35, 37-38, 41, 43, these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). These dependent claims merely recite further specifics of the data being processed in the independent claim or they recite further data identification and selection steps which themselves are an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The indpendent claims recite the limitation “dynamically monitoring a concurrent display state of two or more of the orthodontic treatment plans concurrently displayed within the user interface”, which does not appear to have proper support in the disclosure. The specification and drawings show and discuss multiple plans being displayed in a single window pane and presented to the user. However, there is no mention of any monitoring after they have been displayed.
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 24-43 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.
Claims 24, 39, 42 recite the limitation “dynamically monitoring a concurrent display state of two or more of the orthodontic treatment plans concurrently displayed within the user interface”. It is unclear what exactly is meant by this limitation, such that it is unclear how the display is being dynamically monitored and whether it is automatically done by the computer or whether the user is monitoring to ensure the plans are displayed concurrently and does not selectively change said concurrent display. Clarification is required. For examining purposes, it was understood that dynamic monitoring involves ensuring that the plans that are being compared are displayed in one window pane such that when the user selects the opacity, it applies to the entire display window having both images.
Claims 25-38, 40-41, 43 are rejected 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) 24-26, 28-36, 42-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterental et al. (US 2019/0053876 A1), in view of Kopelman (US 2018/0168781 A1), Batesole (US 2011/0244415 A1), and further in view of Yoshikatsu (JP2011072728 A), translation provided.
Regarding claim 24, Sterental teaches a computer-implemented method for generating and displaying multiple orthodontic treatment plans (abstract and step 512), the method comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor, a digital three-dimensional model of teeth in malocclusion generated from intra-oral three-dimensional scan data (see scanned model 1210 of Fig. 12 and [0086-0087], [0096]);
generating, by the at least one processor, a plurality of orthodontic treatment plans for the teeth based on the digital three-dimensional model ([0111]; 1202a, 1202b, 1202c);
presenting, on an electronic display device, a user interface comprising a visual representation of each of the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans ([0084], [0111] and see 1202a, 1202b, 1202c in Fig. 12).
Sterental teaches viewing the digital 3D model of teeth in malocclusion shown separately with the plurality of different orthodontic treatment plans and without malocclusion overlays (see Figure 12), but is silent explicitly to providing, within the user interface, interactive controls enabling a user to independently select, for each of the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans, whether to display:
the digital three-dimensional model of the teeth in malocclusion,
an overlay representing the orthodontic treatment plan,
a combination of the digital three-dimensional model and the overlay; and
synchronizing user adjustments of overlay opacity and display state selection across two or more of the orthodontic treatment plans to enable comparative analysis based on synchronized visualization settings.
Kopelman et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of manipulation of dental images (see Figures). Kopelman teaches the method includes current image data which may be compared to a final orthodontic position (new arrangement of teeth) associated with a final treatment stage or other future orthodontic position associated with another future intermediate treatment stage and based on this comparison, a visual overlay showing the final arrangement or other future arrangement of the teeth may be generated. Accordingly, the dental practitioner may be able to see what the patient will look like with his or her future or final tooth arrangement ([0118]). Kopelman teaches processing logic may provide the dental practitioner with one or more options for showing playback of the dental arch from initial positions of the teeth to current positions of the teeth and all the way to treatment outcome positions of the teeth such that the visual overlays may be superimposed over the actual patient's teeth in a field of view of the dental practitioner as though the patient's teeth are moving according to the treatment plan before the dental practitioner's eyes ([0165]).
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 providing different options for viewing the model and the overlay, as taught by Kopelman, as it would allow the user to compare a current state of the teeth to a final desired state and simulate said final state more accurately.
Batesole teaches a method for analyzing images of an orthodontic patient via a user interactive interface (abstract). Batesole teaches the user interface provides viewing panes that present various views and are independently navigable such that zoom levels, view positioning, segment selection, and so forth can be individually manipulated from one viewing pane to another ([0031-0032]). Additionally, it includes display parameter controls that variously adjust the way the images are outputted. Different coloring effects may be set by a selection of a Color Look-Up Table (CLUT), and the opacity of the structures may also be changed ([0033]). Batesole teaches overlaying as to superimpose a difference between two representations and manipulation of overlays (see claims 1, 19 and [0044-0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the interface to provide interactive elements allowing a user to adjust an overlay opacity, zooming, and different view selection, as taught by Batesole, such that it would allow the user to control and therefore accurately analyze and compare the malocclusion model with a target state of the teeth according to a treatment plan.
Sterental teaches the treatment plans are displayed concurrently in a single window of the user display (see Figure 12). Batesole teaches anatomical images are displayed concurrently in a single display (see Figure 2) and a tool bar including opacity controls (30) being used for controlling opacity of the images ([0033], [0047]). Batesole does not explicitly teach that adjustment of opacity of one plan/image is applied to the other concurrently displayed plan/image.
Yoshikatsu teaches a user-interface displaying medical images (abstract). Yoshikatsu teaches two histograms representing volume data are displayed on display screen (20) and the opacity of the two volume data can be adjusted simultaneously by moving an opacity setting (see at least the figures and [0009], [0041], [0044], [0046-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the user-interface to include an opacity slide bar that applies the same user-adjusted opacity settings to multiple displayed images, as taught by Yoshikatsu, because it allows the user to view the same setting on all of the images (e.g., treatment plans) and therefore accurately compare/analyze them.
Regarding claim 25, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above). Sterental teaches wherein generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans comprises generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans based on rules for movement of the teeth relating to the malocclusion ([0092], [0099]).
Regarding claim 26, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above). Sterental teaches wherein generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans comprises generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans based on metrics, constraints, or both metrics and constraints relating to movement of the teeth (see abstract, claim 1, step 314 and [0075]).
Regarding claim 28, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above). Sterental teaches wherein generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans comprises generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans based on user- specific preferences ([0102]).
Regarding claim 29, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above). Sterental teaches wherein generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans comprises generating one of the orthodontic treatment plans to include aligners ([0002], [0041], [0067]).
Regarding claim 30, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above). Sterental teaches wherein generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans comprises generating one of the orthodontic treatment plans to include brackets ([0042]).
Regarding claim 31, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above). Sterental teaches wherein generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans comprises generating one of the orthodontic treatment plans to include a combination of aligners and brackets ([0042]; the bracket is an accessory that is used in conjunction with the appliance, which is an aligner).
Regarding claim 32, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above). Sterental teaches wherein generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans comprises generating one of the orthodontic treatment plans based on a treatment duration (see Figure 12; the treatment plans have a duration associated with the number of stages they require, par. 111).
Regarding claim 33, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above). Sterental teaches wherein generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans comprises generating one of the orthodontic treatment plans based on a treatment finishing approach ([0044]; geometry of the appliances may be selected to overcorrect the tooth arrangement as overcorrection may be desired in order to offset potential relapse after the positioning method has been finalized and terminated).
Regarding claim 34, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above). Sterental teaches wherein generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans comprises generating one of the orthodontic treatment plans based on a treatment intervention (see Figure 12 and [0043]; the treatment plans include IPR).
Regarding claim 35, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above). Sterental teaches it further comprising receiving a user selection of one of the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans ([0078]).
Regarding claim 36, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above). Sterental teaches it further comprising manufacturing orthodontic appliances based on the user-selected orthodontic treatment plan ([0079]).
Regarding claim 42, Sterental teaches a computer-implemented method for displaying a user interface comprising multiple orthodontic treatment plans for a digital three-dimensional model of teeth in malocclusion on an electronic display device (abstract and step 512), the method comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor, a digital three-dimensional model of teeth in malocclusion generated from intra-oral three-dimensional scan data (see scanned model 1210 of Fig. 12 and [0086-0087], [0096]);
generating, by the at least one processor, a plurality of orthodontic treatment plans for the teeth based on the digital three-dimensional mode ([0111]; 1202a, 1202b, 1202c);
presenting, on an electronic display device, a user interface comprising a visual representation of each of the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans ([0084], [0111] and see 1202a, 1202b, 1202c in Fig. 12).
Sterental teaches viewing the digital 3D model of teeth in malocclusion shown separately with the plurality of different orthodontic treatment plans and without malocclusion overlays (see Figure 12), but is silent explicitly to providing, within the user interface, interactive controls enabling a user to independently select, for each orthodontic treatment plan, whether to display:
(i) the digital three-dimensional model of the teeth in malocclusion,
(ii) an overlay representing the orthodontic treatment plan, or
a combination of the digital three-dimensional model and the overlay;
enabling a user to adjust overlay opacity for each orthodontic treatment plan;
synchronizing user adjustments of overlay opacity and display state selection across two or more of the orthodontic treatment plans,
wherein a change to a visualization setting for one orthodontic treatment plan is automatically applied to at least one other orthodontic treatment plan; and facilitating comparative analysis of the orthodontic treatment plans based on synchronized visualization settings.
Kopelman et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of manipulation of dental images (see Figures). Kopelman teaches the method includes current image data which may be compared to a final orthodontic position (new arrangement of teeth) associated with a final treatment stage or other future orthodontic position associated with another future intermediate treatment stage and based on this comparison, a visual overlay showing the final arrangement or other future arrangement of the teeth may be generated. Accordingly, the dental practitioner may be able to see what the patient will look like with his or her future or final tooth arrangement ([0118]). Kopelman teaches processing logic may provide the dental practitioner with one or more options for showing playback of the dental arch from initial positions of the teeth to current positions of the teeth and all the way to treatment outcome positions of the teeth such that the visual overlays may be superimposed over the actual patient's teeth in a field of view of the dental practitioner as though the patient's teeth are moving according to the treatment plan before the dental practitioner's eyes ([0165]).
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 providing different options for viewing the model and the overlay, as taught by Kopelman, as it would allow the user to compare a current state of the teeth to a final desired state and simulate said final state more accurately.
Batesole teaches a method for analyzing images of an orthodontic patient via a user interactive interface (abstract). Batesole teaches the user interface provides viewing panes that present various views and are independently navigable such that zoom levels, view positioning, segment selection, and so forth can be individually manipulated from one viewing pane to another ([0031-0032]). Additionally, it includes display parameter controls that variously adjust the way the images are outputted. Different coloring effects may be set by a selection of a Color Look-Up Table (CLUT), and the opacity of the structures may also be changed ([0033]). Batesole teaches overlaying as to superimpose a difference between two representations and manipulation of overlays (see claims 1, 19 and [0044-0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the interface to provide interactive elements allowing a user to adjust an overlay opacity, zooming, and different view selection, as taught by Batesole, such that it would allow the user to control and therefore accurately analyze and compare the malocclusion model with a target state of the teeth according to a treatment plan.
Kopelman teaches superimposing an overlay on a model to compare them. Batesole teaches an interface for analyzing images of an orthodontic patient and the interface being interactive and providing control over various panes, views, zoom levels, view positioning, and adjusting display parameters such as opacity or color. Therefore, the combination teaches enabling a user to adjust the opacity of an overlay and that the system must synchronize the user’s input to reflect the changes to facilitate comparison and analysis of the models.
Sterental teaches the treatment plans are displayed concurrently in a single window of the user display (see Figure 12). Batesole teaches anatomical images are displayed concurrently in a single display (see Figure 2) and a tool bar including opacity controls (30) being used for controlling opacity of the images ([0033], [0047]). Batesole does not explicitly teach that adjustment of opacity of one plan/image is applied to the other concurrently displayed plan/image.
Yoshikatsu teaches a user-interface displaying medical images (abstract). Yoshikatsu teaches two histograms representing volume data are displayed on display screen (20) and the opacity of the two volume data can be adjusted simultaneously by moving an opacity setting (see at least the figures and [0009], [0041], [0044], [0046-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the user-interface to include an opacity slide bar that applies the same user-adjusted opacity settings to multiple displayed images, as taught by Yoshikatsu, because it allows the user to view the same setting on all of the images (e.g., treatment plans) and therefore accurately compare/analyze them.
Regarding claim 43, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 42 (see rejection above). Sterental teaches wherein at least one of the orthodontic treatment plans includes an aligner ([0002], [0041], [0067]), a bracket ([0042]), or a combination of an aligner and a bracket ([0042]; the bracket is an accessory that is used in conjunction with the appliance, which is an aligner).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterental et al. (US 2019/0053876 A1), in view of Kopelman (US 2018/0168781 A1), Batesole (US 2011/0244415 A1), Yoshikatsu (US 2014/0132605 A1), and Mason et al. (US2016/0135925 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans comprises generating the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans based on treatment plans from previously treated patients.
Mason et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of generating orthodontic treatment (abstract). Mason teaches the method comprises generating treatment options and displaying them to the user ([0152]). Mason teaches generating the treatment options can be done using different techniques including data mining of historical patient information to predict treatment outcomes, such that comparable patients’ data may be used to compare the type pf condition and severity of condition ([0054], [0091], [0094]) and the changes to the teeth within the treatment plan may be compared to data regarding similar changes of similar patients available from a patient database to predict movement and shape changes ([0141]).
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 using treatment plans from previously treated patients, as taught by Mason et al., as it would provide reference to similar conditions through a library and therefore facilitate generation of similar treatment plans.
Claim(s) 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterental et al. (US 2019/0053876 A1), in view of Kopelman (US 2018/0168781 A1), Batesole (US 2011/0244415 A1), Yoshikatsu (US 2014/0132605 A1), and Matov et al. (US 2007/0168152 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above), but is silent to it comprising receiving a user refinement of one of the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans.
Matov et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatment planning (abstract and see figures). Matov teaches the method comprises generating treatment plans ([0088]). Matov teaches when a treatment plan is proposed by the system for the dental practitioner, the dental practitioner can accept or request modifications to the treatment plan before it is sent for appliance manufacture and after the plan is approved, it is sent for manufacturing ([0096]). Modifications need to be approved for the design to be sent for manufacturing and so if modifications are being made at this stage of treatment planning, the modifications would be refining and fine tuning the treatment before it is acceptable or correct for manufacture.
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 refining or requesting refinement of a treatment plan, as taught by Matov et al., as it would allow improving of the proposed plan and finalizing it before manufacturing the appliance, therefore preventing errors and redos post fabrication.
Regarding claim 38, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole and Yoshikatsu teaches the method of claim 24 (see rejection above), but is silent to it further comprising receiving a user request for refinement of one of the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans.
Matov et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatment planning (abstract and see figures). Matov teaches the method comprises generating treatment plans ([0088]). Matov teaches when a treatment plan is proposed by the system for the dental practitioner, the dental practitioner can accept or request modifications to the treatment plan before it is sent for appliance manufacture and after the plan is approved, it is sent for manufacturing ([0096]). Modifications need to be approved for the design to be sent for manufacturing and so if modifications are being made at this stage of treatment planning, the modifications would be refining and fine tuning the treatment before it is acceptable or correct for manufacture.
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 refining or requesting refinement of a treatment plan, as taught by Matov et al., as it would allow improving of the proposed plan and finalizing it before manufacturing the appliance, therefore preventing errors and redos post fabrication.
Claim(s) 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterental et al. (US 2019/0053876 A1), in view of Kopelman (US 2018/0168781 A1), Batesole (US 2011/0244415 A1), Kopelman (US 2018/0168781 A1), Akopov (US 2019/0175303 A1), and further in view of Yoshikatsu (JP2011072728 A).
Regarding claim 39, Sterental teaches a system for generating and displaying multiple orthodontic treatment plans (abstract), the system comprising a computing device (400; [0083]) comprising:
an interface configured to receive a digital three-dimensional model of teeth in malocclusion generated from intra-oral three-dimensional scan data (424; [0086-0087], [0096], [0113]);
processing circuitry configured to generate a plurality of orthodontic treatment plans for the teeth based on the digital three-dimensional model ([0086-0089], [0112]);
a display device in communication with the processing circuitry, the display device being configured to present a user interface comprising: a visual representation of each of the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans (see screen in Figure 12 displaying treatment plans 1202a, 1202b, 1202c);
Sterental teaches viewing the digital 3D model of teeth in malocclusion shown separately with the plurality of different orthodontic treatment plans and without malocclusion overlays (see Figure 12), but is silent explicitly to interactive controls enabling a user to independently select, for each orthodontic treatment plan, whether to display:
the digital three-dimensional model of the teeth in malocclusion,
an overlay representing the orthodontic treatment plan,
a combination of the digital three-dimensional model and the overlay; and
at least one interactive element configured to adjust overlay opacity for each orthodontic treatment plan; and
options for viewing:
the digital three-dimensional model of teeth in malocclusion shown separately with overlays between the malocclusion and a final state of the teeth for the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans,
only the malocclusion overlays of the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans without the digital three-dimensional model of teeth in malocclusion shown separately,
the digital three-dimensional model of teeth in malocclusion shown separately with the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans and without the malocclusion overlays, or
the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans without the digital three- dimensional model of teeth in malocclusion shown separately and without the malocclusion overlays; and
the processing circuitry further configured to synchronize user adjustments of overlay opacity and display state selection across two or more of the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans, wherein a change to a visualization setting for one orthodontic treatment plan is automatically applied to at least one other orthodontic treatment plan.
Kopelman et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of manipulation of dental images (see Figures). Kopelman teaches the method includes current image data which may be compared to a final orthodontic position (new arrangement of teeth) associated with a final treatment stage or other future orthodontic position associated with another future intermediate treatment stage and based on this comparison, a visual overlay showing the final arrangement or other future arrangement of the teeth may be generated. Accordingly, the dental practitioner may be able to see what the patient will look like with his or her future or final tooth arrangement ([0118]). Kopelman teaches processing logic may provide the dental practitioner with one or more options for showing playback of the dental arch from initial positions of the teeth to current positions of the teeth and all the way to treatment outcome positions of the teeth such that the visual overlays may be superimposed over the actual patient's teeth in a field of view of the dental practitioner as though the patient's teeth are moving according to the treatment plan before the dental practitioner's eyes ([0165]).
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 providing different options for viewing the model and the overlay, as taught by Kopelman, as it would allow the user to compare a current state of the teeth to a final desired state and simulate said final state more accurately.
Batesole teaches a method for analyzing images of an orthodontic patient via a user interactive interface (abstract). Batesole teaches the user interface provides viewing panes that present various views and are independently navigable such that zoom levels, view positioning, segment selection, and so forth can be individually manipulated from one viewing pane to another ([0031-0032]). Additionally, it includes display parameter controls that variously adjust the way the images are outputted. Different coloring effects may be set by a selection of a Color Look-Up Table (CLUT), and the opacity of the structures may also be changed ([0033]). Batesole teaches overlaying as to superimpose a difference between two representations and manipulation of overlays (see claims 1, 19 and [0044-0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the interface to provide interactive elements allowing a user to adjust an overlay opacity, zooming, and different view selection, as taught by Batesole, such that it would allow the user to control and therefore accurately analyze and compare the malocclusion model with a target state of the teeth according to a treatment plan.
Akopov teaches a method in the same field of endeavior of orthodontic and/or dental treatment planning (abstract). Akopov teaches providing a user with multiple potential treatment options for the concurrent and interactive review of the treatment plan variations (abstract). Akopov teaches viewing the treatment plans only in a window of the interface (see Figure 7A) and also viewing the plans on the side of a model of the initial malocclusion (see Figure 9A).
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 viewing the treatment plans only and/or along the malocclusion model on the side, as taught by Akopov, as it would allow the user to compare the planned final states directly with the current malocclusion and also visually compare the plans only to each other as to make decisions about which plan to proceed with for treatment.
Sterental teaches the treatment plans are displayed concurrently in a single window of the user display (see Figure 12). Batesole teaches anatomical images are displayed concurrently in a single display (see Figure 2) and a tool bar including opacity controls (30) being used for controlling opacity of the images ([0033], [0047]). Batesole does not explicitly teach that adjustment of opacity of one plan/image is applied to the other concurrently displayed plan/image.
Yoshikatsu teaches a user-interface displaying medical images (abstract). Yoshikatsu teaches two histograms representing volume data are displayed on display screen (20) and the opacity of the two volume data can be adjusted simultaneously by moving an opacity setting (see at least the figures and [0009], [0041], [0044], [0046-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the user-interface to include an opacity slide bar that applies the same user-adjusted opacity settings to multiple displayed images, as taught by Yoshikatsu, because it allows the user to view the same setting on all of the images (e.g., treatment plans) and therefore accurately compare/analyze them.
Regarding claim 40, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole, Akopov and Yoshikatsu teaches the system of claim 39 (see rejection above). Batesole teaches wherein the overlay opacity adjustment is configured to provide multiple levels of transparency for the visual representation of each of the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans ([0031-0033] and see claims 1, 19 and [0044-0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the interface to include interactive elements allowing a user to adjust an overlay opacity, zooming, and different view selection, as taught by Batesole, such that it would allow the user to accurately analyze and compare the malocclusion model with a target state of the teeth according to a treatment plan. Adjustment of opacity would reflect different transparency levels of the overlayed image.
Regarding claim 41, Sterental in view of Kopelman, Batesole, Akopov and Yoshikatsu teaches the system of claim 39 (see rejection above). Akopov teaches comprising a rule-based algorithm or a machine-learning algorithm configured to modify a presentation of the plurality of orthodontic treatment plans based on user-specific preferences ([0352]).
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 viewing the treatment plans only and/or along the malocclusion model on the side, as taught by Akopov, as it would allow the user to compare the planned final states directly with the current malocclusion and also visually compare the plans only to each other as to make decisions about which plan to proceed with for treatment and to use machine-learning to reflect user preferences as it would simplify and enhance the process of modification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea such that it has concrete technical steps that apply specific rules and controls to the displayed plans and cannot be performed in the mind and it requires steps that are necessarily rooted in computer technology and addresses a problem arising in graphical user-interfaces. Applicant argues that the synchronizing of a visualization setting across multiple images displayed concurrently is a technical improvement and cannot be done by the human mind and isn’t found in conventional systems.
Applicant further argues that dependent claims recite further technical enhancements and innovations such that they provide generation of treatment plans based on specific rules, data and constraints and referring to claims 41 and stating that it illustrates a technical improvement and claim 39 which includes specific hardware components including electronic display, a user interface and a display device that implement similar steps to the method, therefore supporting the technical improvement of the invention.
The limitations recited in the independent claims fall under an abstract idea or if not an abstract idea, are considered extra solution activity and do not amount to significantly more. Although inconvenient, the claimed steps can be done in the human mind or by pen and paper. For instance, one can create a plurality of plans and compare them and can even control the opacity of a model (e.g., by erasing/fading a sketch). There is no time limit claimed or any evidence that makes it impossible to perform such steps, even if it may take longer or be difficult. Additionally, limitations requiring the use of a “rule-based algorithm” or “machine-based algorithm” would also not be considered eligible since they are merely abstract ideas being performed by artificial intelligence. The claimed dynamic monitoring limitation seems to be an additional mental process as it appears to be just an observation and nothing is done based on this monitoring and the step of synchronizing the output of opacity onto displayed models is considered to be a generic function known to be performed by a generic computer system.
Under step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are directed to an abstract idea such that the steps involve data gathering and data analysis.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The computing device, display device and processing device are recited generically and the method merely uses a computing system to perform the abstract idea. Steps such as determining what to show on a display or involving user input and generic computer output are considered extra-solution activity.
Under step 2B, the claims do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The additional elements are conventional computing and display systems performing their ordinary functions, routine digital steps (e.g., superimposing models), and generic extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the recited limitations are not found to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and the claims remain patentably ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections 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.
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 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, 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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
5/11/2026
Prosecution Insights