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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2024 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-25, and 27-30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Tod et al. (WO 2015/054746) in view of Ahmad I. (Digital dental photography. Part 8: intra-oral set-ups. British dental journal, 2009), and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2010/0151404).
Regarding claim 1, Tod et al. discloses a method for acquiring at least one two-dimensional image of a part of the arches of a patient, said method comprising acquiring with a personal image acquisition apparatus at least one two-dimensional image, wherein Tod et al. discloses such step(s) carried out by the patient 104 (Figs. 1-4; abstract, paragraphs 9, 33). Note that Figs. 3-4 shows the at least one two-dimensional image being an image acquired in a mouth closed position (i.e. the patient bite their upper and lower teeth together).
Regarding the limitation(s) “following an appointment with his or her orthodontist or his or her dentist and outside of a medical, dental or orthodontic practice”, Tod et al. clearly discloses the method of acquiring the images takes place outside of a medical, dental, or orthodontic practice (Fig. 1, paragraphs 33-34). Furthermore, note that in addition to the initial assessment to determine suitability for treatment, Tod discloses: paragraphs [00053]-[00054], emphasis added “At any time, the patient undergoing treatment will be able to log into their account… and capture further images of their teeth over time”. Therefore, Tod discloses the method of acquiring the images following an appointment of receiving orthodontic treatment as claimed, in order to track or monitor the treatment progress.
Tod et al. fails to disclose the step(s) of the patient placing a dental separator in the mouth, and wherein the at least one two-dimensional image comprising an image acquired in a mouth open position (i.e. upper and lower teeth are spaced apart).
Ahmad discloses: a patient placing a dental separator/retractor in their mouth in order to separate their lips and improve the visibility of the teeth, and while the dental separator is placed in the mouth, acquiring at least one two-dimensional image (see Ahmad: Fig.1, page 151); wherein the at least one two-dimensional image comprises an image acquired in a mouth closed position (Ahmad: Figs. 8-9 on page 153 showing the patient bite upper and lower teeth together); and an image acquired in a mouth open position (Ahmad: Figs. 2-3, 5, on page 152).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tod et al. by having the patient placing a dental separator/retractor in their mouth to separate the lips and the cheeks in order to improve visibility of the teeth as explicitly taught by Ahmad (Figs. 1 and 5). And while the dental separator/retractor is placed in the mouth, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to acquire two-dimensional images as explicitly taught by Ahmad in a mouth closed position with the upper and lower teeth bite and closed together (Figs. 8, 17, 24), and in a mouth opened position with the upper and lower teeth spaced apart (Figs. 2-3 and 5), in order to obtain images of the teeth at different positions and angles providing needed comprehensive data for treatment planning and monitoring.
Regarding the newly recited limitation(s), Tod et al. and Ahmad are silent to the at least two two-dimensional images being used to update a three-dimensional digital reference model of at least part of the arches of the patient, or "initial reference model", and obtain a "final reference model". Wu et al. discloses using images of current teeth position to update an initial/previous three-dimensional digital reference model and obtain a final/current reference model (Wu et al. paragraphs [0042]-[0045] “From the image of the patient's teeth in their current position, an assessment can be made as to how the treatment is tracking relative to original treatment projections…”; “the original data set, which contains with it an established target arrangement, can be reused by repositioning the teeth arrangement according to the positions of the (same) teeth captured in the progress scan”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tod/Ahmad to use the acquired images to update a previous/initial three-dimensional reference model of the patient’s teeth and obtain a current/final reference model of the patient’s teeth as explicitly taught by Wu et al. in order to effectively track the treatment’s progress.
As to claim 2, Tod et al. does not disclose a dental separator and is modified to include utility of a dental separator as taught by Ahmad as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ahmad discloses the dental separator (bilateral retractor) comprising a support provided with a rim extending around an aperture and arranged such that during use of the dental separator the lips of the patient rest on said rim and the teeth of the patient are visible through said aperture (Ahmad: Figs. 3 and 5, page 152, columns 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tod et al. by utilizing the bilateral retractor with a support provided with a rim around an aperture as explicitly taught by Ahmad in order to retract the lips and cheeks providing unobstructed visibility to the patient’s teeth.
As to claim 5, Tod et al. discloses acquiring images of a front view of the patient’s teeth but is silent to acquiring images of right side and left side views. Ahmad discloses acquiring images corresponding to a front view (Fig. 8), and individual quadrants (Fig. 17; page 154 column 1) which would include a right side view and a left side view of the patient’s teeth. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to acquire images corresponding to a front view, right side view, and left side view of the teeth, as taught by Ahmad in order to obtain most comprehensive data of the patient’s teeth.
As to claims 6-9, Tod et al. discloses using a smart phone 102 to acquire various two-dimensional images and/or videos, wherein neither the patient’s head nor the mobile phone is immobilized or mechanically stabilized by a device (Figs. 1-5, 9-10; paragraph 49-58).
As to claims 10-12, Tod et al. discloses the personal image acquisition apparatus is a mobile phone 102, and the image is acquired at an instant determined by the patient and transmitted (via 114) to a dental health professional 112 (Fig. 1).
As to claims 13-14, Tod et al. discloses the images are transmitted to a dental health professional for measuring the movement of teeth of the patient from the at least one two-dimensional image, and displaying the images on different dates (Tod et al.: Fig. 1-5; paragraphs 11-15, 54 “capture images of their teeth over time”).
As to claims 15-17, Tod et al. discloses the personal image acquisition apparatus comprises polarizing means 1000 as reference guide in the form of an outline of superimposed teeth, i.e. augmented reality, in facilitating an approximate positioning of the personal image acquisition apparatus relative to the patient before the acquisition of the at least one two-dimensional image (Fig. 10; paragraph 56).
As to claims 18-21, Tod et al. further discloses displaying the captured images showing any change in the patient’s teeth over time (paragraph 56). However, Tod et al. fails to disclose the reference is defined, at least partially from information supplied by the three-dimensional digital reference model. Wu et al. discloses using images of current teeth position to update an initial/previous three-dimensional digital reference model and obtain a final/current reference model (Wu et al. paragraphs [0042]-[0045] “From the image of the patient's teeth in their current position, an assessment can be made as to how the treatment is tracking relative to original treatment projections…”; “the original data set, which contains with it an established target arrangement, can be reused by repositioning the teeth arrangement according to the positions of the (same) teeth captured in the progress scan…”) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tod/Ahmad to use the acquired images to update a previous/initial three-dimensional reference model of the patient’s teeth and using references from the preivous/initial model in order to obtain obtain a current/final reference model of the patient’s teeth as explicitly taught by Wu et al. in order to effectively track the treatment’s progress.
As to claim 22, Tod et al. does not disclose a dental separator and is modified to include utility of a dental separator as taught by Ahmad as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Ahmad’s dental separator/retractor inherently serves as reference guidance due to its rim’s shape and position relative to the teeth. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tod et al. to use the dental retractor as a positional reference guide relative to the teeth.
As to claims 23-25, Tod et al. discloses providing the patient with guidance and various feedbacks to improve image acquisition (Figs. 4-5 and 9-10), displaying treatment plans, incremental changes of teeth over the course of treatment, etc. (paragraphs 56-57).
As to claim 27, Tod et al. discloses displaying the captured images showing any change in the patient’s teeth over time (paragraph 56); therefore, said at least two two-dimensional images are transmitted to a dental health professional for comparison of said initial and final models, and for use of said comparison in: assessing advisability of an interceptive treatment before any orthodontic treatment, notably to assess the benefit of an orthodontic treatment (see Tod et al. Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claims 28-30, Tod et al. in view of Ahmad discloses the method including all the steps substantially as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 3-27.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amendments made to the claims have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Regarding the newly recited limitation(s), Tod et al. and Ahmad are silent to the at least two two-dimensional images being used to update a three-dimensional digital reference model of at least part of the arches of the patient, or "initial reference model", and obtain a "final reference model". Wu et al. discloses using images of current teeth position to update an initial/previous three-dimensional digital reference model and obtain a final/current reference model (Wu et al. paragraphs [0042]-[0045] “From the image of the patient's teeth in their current position, an assessment can be made as to how the treatment is tracking relative to original treatment projections…”; “the original data set, which contains with it an established target arrangement, can be reused by repositioning the teeth arrangement according to the positions of the (same) teeth captured in the progress scan”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tod/Ahmad to use the acquired images to update a previous/initial three-dimensional reference model of the patient’s teeth and obtain a current/final reference model of the patient’s teeth as explicitly taught by Wu et al. in order to effectively track the treatment’s progress.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner HAO D. MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (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.
/HAO D MAI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772