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 .
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 8/13/26, the Applicant amended Claims 1 and argued Claims previously rejected in the Office Action dated 5/14/26. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-22 are pending examination.
In light of the Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the Her reference has been removed.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 8/13/26 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/13/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al., United States Patent Publication 20220054232 (hereinafter “Wen”), in view of Wagner et al., United States Patent Publication 2019//0083207 (hereinafter “Wagner”), in further view of Takano et al., US Patent Publication 2010/0220933 (hereinafter “Takano”).
Claim 1:
Wen discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, via one or more processors, an image of a patient's face (see paragraphs [0006] and [0007]). Wen receiving an image of the patient’s face and smile;
determining, via the one or more processors, a plurality of facial lines using the image of the patient's face, wherein the plurality of facial lines represent a target smile for the patient (see paragraphs [0013], [0027], [0099]). Wen teaches a series of six markers may be automatically placed upon the 3D arch model at features that are located along the line of the facial axis of the clinical crown (FACC) where the FACC line crosses an occlusal edge, e.g., tip of the incisal edge, so that the marker is located at the center of the tip of the tooth; and
wherein determining the plurality of facial lines comprises:
determining a face type of the patient (see paragraph [0006]). Wen teaches determining the face type based on identifying and determining the malocclusions determines the face type and corrections needed;
calculating one or more orthodontic parameters based on the face type (see paragraph [0006]-[0008]). Wen teaches calculating orthodontic parameters and positions of the teeth or adjustments.
generating, via the one or more processors, a treatment plan configured to achieve the target smile, wherein the treatment plan comprises a plurality of digital models representing a sequence of intermediate tooth arrangements configured to incrementally adjust the patient’s teeth from an initial tooth arrangement toward a target tooth arrangement corresponding to the target smile (see paragraphs [0006], [0107]-[0108]). Wen teaches the treatment plan is a plan to move the teeth to target positions to achieve a target smile using a 3D arch model created to control the movement of the teeth to the target positions.
outputting a visualization comprising the plurality of facial lines overlaid onto a
composite image, wherein the composite image comprises the image of the patient's face combined with a digital model of the patient's teeth, and wherein the digital model represents a tooth arrangement of a treatment plan to adjust the patient's teeth from an initial arrangement toward a target tooth arrangement corresponding to the target smile (see paragraphs [0053], [0176], [0232]-[0234]). Wen teaches outputting a visualization of a future smile by overlaying candidate adjustments that will result in a target smile/look.
Wen fails to teach determining facial lines based on the orthodontic parameters.
Wagner discloses:
wherein the one or more orthodontic parameters represent one or more dimensions or proportions of the patient's teeth corresponding to the target smile (see paragraphs [0072] and [0073]). Wagner teaches determining orthodontic parameters based on the person’s teeth to a target position, and
determining at least some of the facial lines based on the one or more orthodontic parameters (see paragraph [0073]). Wagner teaches determining lines of the face and teeth based on the determined parameters;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wen to include determining orthodontic parameters for achieving a target position for the teeth for the purpose of accurately determining natural measurements of the mouth, as taught by Wagner.
Wen and Wagner fail to expressly disclose face type is indicative of a
proportion of one or more facial features of the patient other than the patient's teeth.
Takano discloses:
determining a face type of the patient, wherein the face type is indicative of a proportion of a height of the patient’s face to a width of the patient’s face (see paragraphs [0013], [0032]-[0033]). Takano teaches categorizing face types based on size, shape, facial depth/bone structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wen and Wagner to include determining data indicating the proportion of the face based on size for the purpose of adjusting facial contours based on proportion of the face, as taught by Takano.
Claim 2:
Wen discloses:
selecting the image from a plurality of images of the patient's face (see paragraphs [0006] and [0007]). Wen teaches having images and adjusting the image of the patients face to reach the selecting an image from a plurality of images in a video.
Claim 3:
Wen discloses:
wherein the plurality of images comprise image frames of a video (see paragraphs [0028] and [0154). Wen teaches a plurality of images from a video.
Claim 5:
Wen discloses:
wherein the image is selected based on one or more of the following criteria: position of the patient’s head, position of the patient’s mouth, visibility of the patient’s face, visibility of the patient’s teeth, clarity of the patient’s mouth, resolution of the patient’s mouth, or whether the patient’s eyes are open (see paragraphs [0006] and [0007]). Wen teaches selecting and positioning an image from a plurality of images based on the visibility of the patient’s face and teeth.
Claim 6:
Wen discloses:
adjusting the image before determining the plurality of facial lines (see paragraphs [0006] and [0007]). Wen teaches the captured image is, such that the patient has a natural looking position.
Claim 7:
Wen discloses:
adjusting the image comprises rotating the image to a vertical orientation (see paragraph [0007]). Wen teaches the captured image is adjusted for positioning which can include being rotated.
Claim 9:
Wen discloses:
wherein determining the plurality of facial lines comprises: identifying a plurality of facial landmarks in the image, and determining the plurality of facial lines based on the plurality of facial landmarks (see paragraphs [0095], [0095]). Wen teaches aligning the image by determining landmarks and matching with points on the face.
Claim 11:
Wen fails to expressly disclose determining a face type and orthodontic parameters as a function.
Wagner discloses:
wherein the one or more orthodontic parameters are calculated using a continuous function relating a value of the one or more orthodontic parameters to the face type of the patient (see paragraphs ([0072]-[0073]). Wagner teaches a continuous function of performing mathematical calculations based on the orthodontic parameters.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wen to include orthodontic parameters are calculated using a continuous function relating a value of the one or more orthodontic parameters for the purpose of accurately determining natural measurements of the mouth, as taught by Wagner.
Claim 12:
Wen discloses:
where the plurality of facial lines comprise one or more of the following: a facial midline, an intercanine width line, an incisal edge line, a gingival edge line, a horizontal line, or a tooth outline (see paragraphs [0099]). Wen teaches identifying facial lines such as incisal edge lines and facial midlines.
Claim 19:
Wen discloses:
wherein the composite image is displayed concurrently with at least one digital model of the plurality of digital models (see paragraph [0030]). Wen teaches overlaying the 3D model and the facial image to show the final positions.
Claim 21:
Wen discloses:
wherein the sequence of intermediate tooth arrangements is configured to incrementally reposition the patient’s teeth from the initial tooth arrangement toward the target tooth arrangement (see paragraph [0013], [0024], [0025]). Wen teaches incremental movements to move the teeth from the initial position to the target positions.
Claim 22:
Wen fails to teach determining facial lines based on the orthodontic parameters.
Wagner discloses:
wherein the one or more orthodontic parameters comprises one or more of a central incisor width, a recurring esthetic dental proportion, or an intercanine width multiplier (see paragraph [0073]). Wagner teaches based on these average positions of the central incisors and canines, an arc of curvature (curved line) is drawn so it may contact the facial surface of the canines and central incisors;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wen to include determining orthodontic parameters for achieving a target position for the teeth for the purpose of accurately determining natural measurements of the mouth, as taught by Wagner.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen Wagner and Takano, in view of Tavanei et al., United States Patent Publication 20220398731 (hereinafter “Tavanei”).
Claim 4:
Wen, Wagner and Takano fail to expressly disclose selecting the image based on a machine learning model.
Tavanei discloses:
wherein the image is selected using a machine learning algorithm (see paragraphs ([0073], [0086], [0093]). Tavanei teaches the composite image is selected based on the machine learning algorithm.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wen, Wagner and to Takano using a machine learning algorithm for the purpose improving the person's ability to take steps or make an informed decision to improve perceived attractiveness of his or her facial appearance, as taught by Tavanei.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen Wagner and Takano, in view of Martinez, United States Patent Publication 20190294868.
Claim 8:
Wen, Wagner and Takano fail to expressly disclose selecting the image based on a machine learning model.
Martinez discloses:
wherein rotating the image to the vertical orientation comprises:
identifying a set of first facial landmarks in the image, generating a mirrored image comprising a set of second facial landmarks, matching each first facial landmark to a corresponding second facial landmark by one or more of rotating or translating the mirrored image, determining a matching angle for the mirrored image, and rotating the image by the matching angle. (see paragraph ([0124]). Martinez teaches the facial landmark detector generates additional images by applying two-dimensional affine transformations to the existing training set, i.e., scale, reflection, translation and rotation. The process Martinez performs generates reflection and rotations by matching facial landmarks.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wen, Wagner and Takano to include rotating images by created mirrored images and matching facial landmarks for the purpose of improving the recognition of facial properties in images, as taught by Martinez.
Claims 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen, Wagner and Takano, in view of Cofar et al., United States Patent Publication 20230051506 (hereinafter “Cofar”).
Claim 13:
Wen, Wagner and Takano fail to expressly disclose modifying facial lines.
Cofar discloses:
receiving user input indicating a modification to at least one facial line (see paragraphs [0053], [0075], [0076]). Cofar teaches receiving user input indicating a modification of the tooth or smile restoration that will change the overall facial line.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wen, Wagner and Takano to include modifying facial lines for the purpose of accurately and efficiently producing measurements for the best digital model of the treatment plan, as taught by Cofar.
Claim 15:
Wen, Wagner and Takano fail to expressly disclose changes in mass of a tooth.
Cofar discloses:
wherein the target tooth arrangement comprises a change in mass of at least one tooth (see paragraph [0149]-[0152]). Cofar teaches a change in mass of the one tooth by changing the size and shape of a tooth.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wen, Wagner and Takano to include identifying a change in mass of the tooth for the purpose of accurately and efficiently identifying and producing measurements for the best digital model of the treatment plan, as taught by Cofar.
Claim 16:
Wen, Wagner and Takano fail to teach a change in mass of the tooth.
Cofar discloses:
wherein the change in the mass of the at least one tooth comprises one or more of a tooth mass addition or a tooth mass reduction (see paragraph [0149]-[0152]). Cofar teaches a change in mass of the one tooth by changing the size and shape of a tooth.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wen, Wagner and Takano to include identifying a change in mass of the tooth for the purpose of accurately and efficiently identifying and producing measurements for the best digital model of the treatment plan, as taught by Cofar.
Claim 17:
Wen, Wagner and Takano fail to teach a change in mass in the tooth.
Cofar discloses:
wherein the change in the mass of the at least one tooth comprises addition of a restorative object to adjust a shape of an existing tooth or to replace a missing tooth (see paragraph [0149]-[0152] and [0177). Cofar teaches a change in mass of the one tooth by changing the size and shape of a tooth or replacing a tooth.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wen, Wagner and Takano to include identifying a change in mass of the tooth for the purpose of accurately and efficiently identifying and producing measurements for the best digital model of the treatment plan, as taught by Cofar.
Claim 18:
Wen, Wagner and Takano fail to teach a restorative object.
Cofar discloses:
wherein the restorative object comprises a crown, a veneer, edge bonding, a composite, an implant, or a prosthetic (see paragraph [0149]-[0152] and [0177]). Cofar teaches veneers.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wen, Wagner and Takano to include a restorative object for the purpose of accurately and efficiently identifying and producing measurements for the best digital model of the treatment plan, as taught by Cofar.
Claim 20:
Wen, Wagner and Takano fail to teach modifying the facial lines.
Cofar discloses:
receiving user input indicating a modification to the target tooth arrangement, wherein the modification is generated based on the plurality of facial lines (see paragraphs [0053], [0075], [0076]). Cofar teaches receiving user input indicating a modification of the tooth or smile restoration based on the facial lines presented.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wen, Wagner and Takano to include modifying the facial lines for the purpose of accurately and efficiently identifying and producing measurements for the best digital model of the treatment plan, as taught by Cofar.
Pertinent Art
2021/0217249 – Although the art teaches the recommendation processing unit may utilize classification to perform type analysis according to the size of the face. The Examiner selected art was the stronger art.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see REM, filed 6/30/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wen, Wagner and Takano.
Applicant argues Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 19, 21, and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Wen, Wagner, and Her. Without commenting on or conceding the merits of this rejection, independent claim 1 has been amended to further clarify the claimed subject matter. Pursuant to the agreement reached during the Interview, amended independent claim 1 is patentable over Wen in view of Wagner and Her. The remaining claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency in addition to reciting further distinguishing features. Accordingly, the Section 103 rejection of these claims should be withdrawn for at least the reasons discussed above.
The Examiner agrees.
Her reference is no longer used in this rejection. The Examiner introduced Takano to teaches the amended limitation (see the above the rejection for Claim ). The combination of Wen, Wagner and Takano.
Applicant argues Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Wen, Wagner, Her, and Tavanei. Claim 4 depends from base claim 1, which is patentable over Wen, Wagner, and Her as discussed above. Tavanei cannot cure the above-noted deficiencies of Wen, Wagner, and Her to support a Section 103 rejection of base claim 1. Accordingly, claim 4 is patentable over the combination of Wen, Wagner, Her, and Tavanei for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to base claim 1, and for the additional features of this dependent claim. Therefore, the Section 103 rejection of claim 4 should be withdrawn.
The Examiner agrees.
Her reference is no longer used in this rejection. The Examiner introduced Takano to teaches the amended limitation (see the above the rejection for Claim ). The combination of Wen, Wagner and Takano.
Applicant argues Claim 8 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Wen, Wagner, Her, and Martinez. Claim 8 depends from base claim 1, which is patentable over Wen, Wagner, and Her as discussed above. Martinez cannot cure the above-noted deficiencies of Wen, Wagner, and Her to support a Section 103 rejection of base claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is patentable over the combination of Wen, Wagner, Her, and Martinez for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to base claim 1, and for the additional features of this dependent claim. Therefore, the Section 103 rejection of claim 8 should be withdrawn.
The Examiner agrees.
Her reference is no longer used in this rejection. The Examiner introduced Takano to teaches the amended limitation (see the above the rejection for Claim ). The combination of Wen, Wagner and Takano.
Applicant argues Claims 13, 15-18, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Wen, Wagner, Her, and Cofar. Claims 13, 15-18, and 20 depend from base claim 1, which is patentable over Wen, Wagner, and Her as discussed above. Cofar cannot cure the above-noted deficiencies of Wen, Wagner, and Her to support a Section 103 rejection of base claim 1. Accordingly, claims 13, 15-18, and 20 are patentable over the combination of Wen, Wagner, Her, and Cofar for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to base claim 1, and for the additional features of these dependent claims. Therefore, the Section 103 rejection of claims 13, 15-18, and 20 should be withdrawn.
The Examiner agrees.
Her reference is no longer used in this rejection. The Examiner introduced Takano to teaches the amended limitation (see the above the rejection for Claim ). The combination of Wen, Wagner and Takano.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIONNA M BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-7259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
/TIONNA M BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 8/22/26
Prosecution Insights