DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the jaw model". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 9 recites “machine learning model”, but does not disclose any improvements to the machine learning models to be applied. As established in the recent federal circuit decision (case 23-2437), patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raslambekov (US 11,213,373).
Raslambekov shows a method of orthodontic treatment planning for a patient, the method comprising receiving three-dimensional volumetric scan data of a dentition of the patient (col. 10, last paragraph to col. 11, second paragraph describing the different scan types, listing volumetric modalities); and determining, for use in planning an orthodontic treatment (col. 6, lines 36-50 for instance), a mandibular rotation axis and a location of a glenoid/mandibular fossae of the temporal bone based on a mandibular condyle of the patient using the scan data (col. 8, lines 6-34 for instance discusses movement as a result of the condyle interacting with the fossae in all directions and therefore establishing the fossae and resulting axis/hinge; the location of the condyles are known as in Fig. 2 for instance and since the condyles “slide along the adjacent bone structure (the mandibular fossae)”, the location of fossae must also be known in order to determine this natural Bennett movement and the parameters associated therewith; see col. 17, line 64 – col. 18, line 19). With respect to claim 2, further comprising: receiving three-dimensional intraoral surface scan data of the dentition (col. 11, line 3 – col. 13, line 10 discuss the various imaging modalities, including intraoral surface scan data); and overlaying the intraoral surface scan data and the volumetric scan data to generate integrated scan data (these portions discuss utilizing both volumetric and surface scans to form the digital model and would therefore need to be overlayed/registered in some manner to be combined). With respect to claim 3, wherein overlaying the intraoral surface scan data and the volumetric scan data comprises registering the intraoral surface scan data with the volumetric scan data (as discussed above, the two data sources would need to be registered with one another to establish corresponding anatomy and location in order to create the final digital model). With respect to claim 4, wherein the volumetric scan data comprises one or more of X-ray scan data and magnetic resonance imaging scan data (col. 12, lines 43-57 for instance). With respect to claim 5, wherein the volumetric scan data corresponds to a cranium and viscerocranium of the patient (col. 10, last paragraph discusses data of “maxillofacial” which is considered equivalent to viscerocranium, or at least overlapping regions thereof, and “cranial anatomy” which is considered equivalent to cranium, or at least overlapping regions thereof). With respect to claim 6, wherein the intraoral surface scan data comprises optical color scan data (col. 11 discusses use of “optical imaging” which would have color/optical data). With respect to claim 7, wherein the mandibular rotation axis and the glenoid fossae are based on a lateral, medial, superior, and anterior geometry of the mandibular condyle (as discussed above with respect to claim 1, col. 8, lines 6-34 for instance discusses movement as a result of the condyle geometry interacting with the fossae geometry in all directions to establish the resulting axis/hinge; since movement in all directions is derived, all sides of the condyle will be utilized). With respect to claim 8, wherein the mandibular rotation axis and the glenoid fossae are based on the anterio-superior-most portion of the mandibular condyle (equivalent thereof discussed in col. 8 with the condyle moving along an articulator surface of the skull [which would be the fossae] and this movement would include the anterio-superior-most portion of the condyle interacting with the fossae). With respect to claim 9, further comprising predicting the mandibular condyle using the scan data input to a machine learning model (generic application of machine learning does not further distinguish over Raslambekov; see 101 above). With respect to claim 10, further comprising generating a jaw model of the patient based on the scan data, the mandibular rotation axis, and the glenoid fossae (col. 11, line 37 – col. 12, line 16 discuss the creation of the model as a result of scan data, mandibular rotation axis [result of motion data], and the glenoid/mandibular fossae). With respect to claim, further comprising predicting a jaw movement of the patient using the jaw model of the patient (col. 8, starting at line 6 discusses establishment of a general sagittal inclination path for instance which creates a prediction of the jaw movement). With respect to claim 12, wherein predicting the jaw movement comprises one or more of a mandibular movement, articular movement, and movement at occlusion of teeth (see above, col. 8 starting at line 6 for these types of movement). Claims 13-15 are directed to alternatives of claim 12 and would therefore not be specifically required, however col. 8, starting at line 6 discusses several of the claimed movements). With respect to claim 16-17, further comprising planning the orthodontic treatment using the jaw model of the patient (col. 8 lines 26-57), further comprising generating a plurality of aligner trays with tooth- receiving cavities, each aligner tray corresponding to a respective tooth arrangement (col. 8, lines 49-57 and col. 9, lines 34-39 in particular discuss use of a plurality of aligners).
System claims 18-35 are rejected similarly to the above, as they contain the same limitations, and additionally a memory device (560/570), at least one processor (550), to do the determination for treatment planning discussed above. With respect to claim 35, further comprising a display for showing the jaw model and user interface (Fig. 6 shows display and mouse for interfacing/displaying).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to the 101 that the claim clearly improves the technical field of orthodontic treatment planning, however it is unclear what in the technological field is being improved and how. It is unclear where in the provided citations this support can be found. The claims appear to merely claim the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e. “produce a prediction of the mandibular condyle”).
Applicant argues that Raslambekov does not determine “a location of a glenoid fossae” because the parameters are defined by movement and angles rather than a location of an anatomical structure, however the condyle by itself does not provide these parameters. For instance, the parameter of Bennett motion in Raslambekov relies on the location of the fossa since this motion is the result of the sliding of the condyles along the fossae. Col. 17-18 cited above discuss, for instance, use of the anatomical structures in the imaging/determining of parameters.
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 MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772