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
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 17 line 2, “restated” should read “restarted”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 16-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “calculating key frames of the restarted orthodontic treatment plan based on…corresponding key frames of the second group of 3D digital models of teeth from the identified 3D digital model of the teeth”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation since the identified 3D digital model is one of the models of the second group of 3D digital models. For examining purposes, it was understood that the key frames are calculated based on differences between the identified model (i.e., closest match to the first/current model) and other models within the second group of 3D models to generate the revised treatment plan.
Claims 3, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) 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) 1, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitching et al. (US 2019/0314116 A1) and Miller et al. (US 2002/0042038 A1), and Chishti et al. (US 2001/0002310 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kitching teaches a computer-implemented method for generating restarted orthodontic treatment plan (abstract, [0059-0092]), comprising:
obtaining a first group of M 3D digital models of teeth which respectively represent the last M successive tooth arrangements in a previous orthodontic treatment plan of a dentition ([0063-0065]; the previously segmented teeth models of the previous treatment plan);
obtaining a first 3D digital model of teeth which represents the tooth arrangement of the dentition upon restart of orthodontic treatment ([0063-0065]; the Current Teeth image representing an actual arrangement of the patient’s teeth following the original treatment plan);
replacing at least one tooth model in the first group of 3D digital models of teeth with corresponding tooth model in the first 3D digital model of teeth, to obtain a second group of M 3D digital models of teeth ([0081-0092] and see Fig. 12A; the planned position model is replaced with the current position model such that the current position model takes its place in the revised treatment plan to achieve the same final arrangement and [0090]; data regarding previously planned staging superceded by the revised staging or treatment file that are no longer applicable can be discarded such that current teeth positions can be reset to an initial or starting position and used to generate the revised treatment path and the same target position may be retained), and
M is a natural number greater than 2 (there are a plurality of models corresponding to successive stages of a treatment plan), and
an orthodontic treatment plan comprises a plurality of successive tooth arrangements from an initial tooth arrangement to a target tooth arrangement, and represents the path of orthodontic treatment ([0080]); and
fabricating a plurality of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners based on corresponding successive steps of the restarted orthodontic treatment plan ([0096]).
Kitching teaches the method involves optimization of tooth paths so that the teeth are moved in the most efficient and clinically acceptable fashion to bring the teeth to the desired positions ([0043]) and generating a revised plan using the current tooth model to achieve a revised final tooth arrangement, the revised final tooth arrangement can be the same as the previously planned final arrangement or a completely new final tooth arrangement (see Figures 12A-12C and [0059], [0082], [0090]), but is silent to it specifically performing collision and gap optimization in the second group of 3D digital models of teeth to obtain a second 3D digital model of teeth representing the target tooth arrangement of the restarted orthodontic treatment plan.
Miller et al. teaches method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatment planning. Miller teaches the method involves performing collision optimization for the path of a tooth from an initial position to a final position (see Figure 7). The system can be programmed to detect any collisions that will occur as the patient’s teeth move along the treatment paths such that it can calculate distances between models and determine if collisions are present and if they are, the paths would be resampled and new paths created ([0012] and see figure 7). An improper bite occlusion may also be detected ([0012]).
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 of Kitching to include performing collision and gap optimization on the planned and revised target model representing the final desired arrangement of the patient’s teeth, as taught by Miller, such that it would allow revision of the generated paths of the teeth within the treatment plan and therefore reduce the possibilities of undesired gaps or collisions that may affect the outcome of the treatment.
Kitching teaches comparing the current model to the closest model from a plurality of models ([0068-0069], [0074]) and therefore teaches identifying a 3D digital model of teeth in the first group of 3D digital models of teeth, of which the tooth arrangement is closest to the first 3D digital model (since the second group is the same as the first group but has one replaced model). Kitching further teaches comparing and updating the models in the restaging process to more accurately reflect the patient’s current teeth ([0088-0089]), using the current model to come up with a revised plan to achieve the target arrangement, which may be the same as the original target arrangement or a new target arrangement (see Figures 12A-12C and [0081-0082]), and incorporating and seamlessly synchronizing new information into the revised treatment planning ([0090]). Kitching teaches comparing positions and landmarks of teeth on the current model with previously planned models ([0071-0073]), and also mentions the use of reference frames on models to describe how a tooth may be moved ([0030]) and identifying reference points on a model ([0062]). Therefore, Kitching discloses comparing the first/current digital model with each model of the second group of digital models as necessary (i.e., models of the previous treatment plan leading up to the previous target arrangement and including a model close to the current teeth model).
Kitching is silent to explicitly identifying the closest match to the first/current model being done during generation of the revised plan and specifically to the second group of models and calculating key frames of the restarted orthodontic treatment plan based on pose differences of teeth to be repositioned between models and wherein a key frame is a step in which any tooth starts or stops a movement.
However, 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 comprise identifying the closest match to the current tooth model and calculating positional differences specifically between the current model and its closest match, other models and the previously planned final arrangement model, because it would aid in accurate redirection or resumption of the revised plan as to seamlessly synchronize it with the previous treatment plan.
Kitching is also silent to the steps including interpolation based on tooth positions to obtain the revised positions.
Chishti et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic planning. Chishti teaches the method comprises creating a plan for repositioning a patient’s teeth by using digital data sets of original and final positions of the teeth and using a computer to generate treatment paths along which teeth will move from the initial positions to the final positions (abstract). Chishti teaches the plan may involve specifying “key frames” by selecting an intermediate state and making changes to component position(s). In some embodiments, unless instructed otherwise, the software automatically linearly interpolates between all user-specified positions (including the initial position, all key frame positions, and the target position). For example, if only a final position is defined for a particular component, each Subsequent Stage after the initial Stage will simply show the component an equal linear distance and rotation (specified by a quaternion) closer to the final position. If the user Specifies two key frames for that component, the component will “move” linearly from the initial position through different Stages to the position defined by the first key frame. It will then move, possibly in a different direction, linearly to the position defined by the Second key frame. Finally, it will move, possibly in yet a different direction, linearly to the target position ([0147]). The resulting final path consists of a series of vectors, each of which represents a group of values of the interpolation parameters of the translational and rotational components of the transformations of the moving teeth. Taken together, these constitute a Schedule of tooth movement which avoids tooth-to-tooth interferences ([0167]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Kitching to include interpolation between all positions including the initial position, key frame positions, and the target position to plan a new path for the revised treatment, as taught by Chishti, as it would provide a schedule of tooth movement which avoids tooth-to-tooth interferences and allow automatic and accurate linear movement planning to determine the required vectors and transformations.
Regarding claim 16, Kitching in view of Miller and Chishti teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the number of steps of the restarted orthodontic treatment plan is same as the number of 3D digital models of teeth from the identified one to the last one of the second group of 3D digital models of teeth.
The identified model is the model that matches the current representation of the teeth and the last one of the second group of models represents the target arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the restarted orthodontic treatment can and would have the same number of models from the identified to the last one of the second group of models since the orthodontic treatment plan starts at the current state of teeth and ends at the target arrangement.
Regarding claim 17, Kitching in view of Miller and Chishti teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches in step 612, detailed matching and comparison between the previous model and the current teeth image occurs which includes a surface matching algorithm, which involves taking a number of samples of each tooth in the previous model and finds the closest corresponding sampling point on the current teeth image to create a grid for each tooth that gets overlayed with the current model ([0069]). Threshold difference values of a planned position of teeth to actual positions are determined and used to calculate new tooth positions for a revised path for treatment. The calculations require using the models of the previous plan, the current 3D model representing the actual teeth positions in order to obtain new positions and orientations of teeth for a revised plan that will align the teeth back on track. This automatically includes consideration of key-frames as each tooth movement or no-movement is considered as part of the planning and those steps depend on how and when each tooth should behave as to get the proper alignment (see figures 10-12 and [0068-0092]). Kitching specifically teaches seamless synchronization of the revised treatment including appliance sequence ([0090], [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that each key frame of the restated orthodontic treatment plan is calculated based on a corresponding key frame of the second group of 3D digital models of teeth, pose differences of the teeth to be repositioned between the first 3D digital model of teeth and the identified 3D digital model of teeth, pose differences of the teeth to be repositioned between the second 3D digital model of teeth and the last one of the second group of 3D digital models of teeth, the number of steps along the second group of 3D digital model of the teeth and the number of steps of the restarted orthodontic treatment plan is the same because each model of the second group must be altered to achieve the new target arrangement and each model of the restarted orthodontic plan must correspond to a model within the second group as to reflect a revised successive treatment plan.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitching et al. (US 2019/0314116 A1), Miller et al. (US 2002/0042038 A1), and Chishti et al. (US 2001/0002310 A1), and further in view of Isaacson et al. (US 2013/0273491 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kitching in view of Miller and Chishti teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the replacement of the at least one tooth model is based on an ICP algorithm.
Isaacson et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic planning. Isaacson teaches the method uses virtual models of patient’s teeth and comparing the desired model of the teeth with the actual model of the teeth. Isaacson teaches superimposition of the virtual models provides accurate and precise measurement of variances between the two models and difficulties due to superimposing the models, which are of the entire arch and evaluations based on individual teeth are overcome by applying an iterative closest point algorithm to correct the position and provide a truer measure for evaluation such that differences between a preferred position of the patient’s teeth and actual position of a patient’s teeth may be assigned a score and the score may be compared to other patients to rank the patient needs (abstract).
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 of Kitching to use an iterative closest point algorithm to compare and process the models, as taught by Isaacson, such that it would allow accurate and precise measurements between the two and therefore provide a more accurate treatment plan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kitching merely teaches updating the gingival line or synchronizing data relates to aligning the old path to the new position and updating the boundaries of the appliance and does not teach replacing the entire digital geometry of a tooth model within the remaining planned stages with the entire newly scanned tooth geometry and this cannot be equivalent to the replacement of the entire tooth geometry as required in claim 1. However, this is not persuasive. Kitching teaches that the current model of the teeth is used to restage the previous treatment plan and generate a revised treatment plan ([0059-0092]). Kitching shows the current model replaces a planned model of a previous plan and is used as a new starting position for the revised treatment plan (see Fig. 12A below). Kitching further discloses that data regarding previously planned staging superseded by the revised staging or treatment file that are no longer applicable can be discarded such that current teeth positions can be reset to an initial or starting position and used to generate the revised treatment path and the same target position may be retained ([0090]).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues that the calculation uses three distinct pose difference elements that define the path’s geometry including: 1) pose differences of teeth to be repositioned between the first 3D digital model of teeth and the identified 3D digital model of teeth, 2) corresponding key frames of the second group of 3D digital model of teeth from the identified 3D digital model of teeth, and 3) pose differences of the teeth to be repositioned between the second 3D digital model of teeth and the last one of the second group of 3D digital models of teeth and that neither Kitching nor the secondary references disclose this specific tripartite pose difference calculation.
This is also not found to be persuasive. Please note that for the second element, it is unclear what is being compared since the identified model is one of the second group of digital models and that it was understood such that the identified model is compared to 1) the first 3D digital model, 2) other models in the second group of digital models, and 3) the final model of the second group of models. Kitching teaches comparing the current model to the closest model from a plurality of models ([0068-0069], [0074]) and therefore teaches identifying a 3D digital model of teeth in the first group of 3D digital models of teeth, of which the tooth arrangement is closest to the first 3D digital model (since the second group is the same as the first group but has one replaced model). Kitching teaches comparing positions and landmarks of teeth on the current model with previously planned models ([0071-0073]) and also mentions the use of reference frames on models to describe how a tooth may be moved ([0030]) and identifying reference points on a model ([0062]). Therefore, Kitching discloses comparing the first/current digital model with each model of the second group of digital models as necessary (i.e., models of the previous treatment plan leading up to the previous target arrangement and including a model close to the current teeth model). Although Kitching does not explicitly teach identifying the closest match to the first/current model being done during generation of the revised plan and specifically to the second group of models and calculating key frames of the restarted orthodontic treatment plan based on pose differences of teeth to be repositioned between models and wherein a key frame is a step in which any tooth starts or stops a movement, it would have been obvious to modify the method to comprise identifying the closest match to the current tooth model and calculating positional differences specifically between the current model and its closest match, other models and the previously planned final arrangement model, because it would aid in accurate redirection or resumption of the revised plan as to seamlessly synchronize it with the previous treatment plan and create a similar new path leading to the new target position.
Chishti teaches specifying “key frames” by selecting an intermediate state and making changes to component position(s). In some embodiments, unless instructed otherwise, the software automatically linearly interpolates between all user-specified positions (including the initial position, all key frame positions, and the target position) and if the user Specifies two key frames for analyzing tooth movement paths ([0147]). The resulting final path consists of a series of vectors, each of which represents a group of values of the interpolation parameters of the translational and rotational components of the transformations of the moving teeth. Taken together, these constitute a Schedule of tooth movement which avoids tooth-to-tooth interferences ([0167]). Therefore, the combination of Kitching and Chishti disclose using key frame calculations and comparing the current tooth model with any and/or all models of the previous plan (including a closest model, other sequential models and a final model), as to create all remaining stages of a revised treatment path synchronically with the current state of the patient’s teeth.
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.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached 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 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
1/14/2026