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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 8/11/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 7, 8, 16, 26, and 27 have been amended
Claims 1 – 31 are pending.
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 1 – 31 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.
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 16 - 31), machine (claims 1 – 15), which recite abstract idea steps of
access one or more measurements of a patient's current dentition;
create and save a current condition address that is specific to the patient's current dentition in a database based on the one or more measurements, the current condition address including a plurality of sub-addresses that represent the patient's current dentition characterized according to a plurality of predefined components, wherein each of the plurality of predefined components is associated with a malocclusion in a particular dimension;
receive one or more treatment goals of the patient selected from predefined treatment goals;
create and save a plurality of treatment goal addresses in the database based on the received one or more treatment goals;
create and save combined addresses in the database, wherein the combined addresses associate the plurality of treatment goals addresses with the plurality of sub-addresses of the current condition address; and
generate one or more treatment options based on a user query of the database using a specific combined address, wherein the one or more treatment options is specific to a patient condition-treatment goal combination.
These steps of claims 1 – 31, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner understands the claimed invention as a whole in light of the Specification. For Example, paragraph 2 states:
FIELD
[0002] The present disclosure is related generally to systems for orthodontics. More specifically, the present disclosure is related to system for orthodontic assessment and treatment planning.
The improvement to the user experience is repeated in paragraph 8 and 31 as
[0008] In view of the foregoing, it would be desirable to have methods and systems to comprehensively characterize a patient' s dentition, that integrates a patient' s treatment goals, and that provides improved flexibility and user access.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0031] Described herein are apparatuses (e.g., systems, devices) and methods for orthodontic assessment, which may be used in treatment planning for a patient' s dental condition. As described above, the systems and methods described herein improve upon conventional systems and methods by fully classifying and cataloguing an orthodontic dental condition, treatment goals and other information specific to a patient. This information can be saved in a database structure organized according to predefined orthodontic parameters for each tooth of a dentition. The information may be stored as identifiers (e.g., addresses and sub-addresses) that are accessible by a user and that may be used to directly edit the data. In this way, the database structure allows for user transparency and accessibility of data that previous systems do not provide. A user may access and/or edit information at different times during the orthodontic assessment and treatment planning process, thereby providing more user flexibility and options.
The invention is not directed towards a technical or technological improvement. Rather, the invention applies the abstract idea technology in order to achieve all the benefits of applying the abstract idea to technology. The result of the invention is data that has a potential utility and therefore has no practical application.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2 – 15 and 17 – 31, reciting particular aspects of how planning may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of store instructions amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea)
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of access scans amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of receive one or more treatment goals amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 15 and 17 – 31, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1 – 31; generate … using a specific combined address, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Additional elements:
an intraoral scanner – paragraph 33
one or more processors – paragraphs 32, 34 a server or computer
memory – paragraphs 36, 135
the memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: - paragraph 135
network – paragraph 104
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 15 and 17 – 31, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, wherein the plurality of predefined components is … e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)) Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
CLAIM REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1 – 31
Step 2A, Prong One
The Applicant states, “The claims recite specific processes for generating one or more treatment options based on a combination of a patient's current dentition and specified treatment goal(s).” The Examiner agrees and this is why the invention is the abstract idea of Methods of Organizing human activity.
The Applicant further states, “Thus, the claims require a particular computer-based process that is more than simply improving a user's experience in treatment planning.” The Applicant is describing the result of applying the abstract idea to technology to achieve all the benefits of applying that abstract idea to technology.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The Applicant states, “The Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the claims are directed to an improvement in the computer capabilities specifically associated with intraoral scanning.” The Applicant’s opinion is noted. However, the Examiner goes by the claimed invention, as a whole, in light of the Specification. The Applicant refers to the Specification, paragraph 31, copied here in the entirety for completeness of the response.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0031] Described herein are apparatuses (e.g., systems, devices) and methods for orthodontic assessment, which may be used in treatment planning for a patient' s dental condition. As described above, the systems and methods described herein improve upon conventional systems and methods by fully classifying and cataloguing an orthodontic dental condition, treatment goals and other information specific to a patient. This information can be saved in a database structure organized according to predefined orthodontic parameters for each tooth of a dentition. The information may be stored as identifiers (e.g., addresses and sub-addresses) that are accessible by a user and that may be used to directly edit the data. In this way, the database structure allows for user transparency and accessibility of data that previous systems do not provide. A user may access and/or edit information at different times during the orthodontic assessment and treatment planning process, thereby providing more user flexibility and options.
Note that the paragraph’s first line, the topic sentence, describes the invention as directed towards “orthodontic assessment.” The information created is described and then that information is saved “in a database structure…” It is the Examiner’s point that the Specification describes using technology and not improving upon technology. The applying of the abstract idea to technology, or using the technology, then “allows for user transparency and accessibility of data that previous systems do not provide.” This is not a technological improvement but the benefit of the technology.
The Specification never describes the required database features. Rather, the database is disclosed as storing particular information. That information may be acted upon by ordinary database features such as retrieval and querying. The Specification does not disclose the invention as a technical or a technological improvement to overcome a technical problem. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments directed toward cases that include a technological improvement are moot.
Step 2B
The Applicant states, “Rather, the claims recite a specific way to create database structures that associate treatment goal data with malocclusion data in a plurality of dimensions that is specific to the patient, and to provide a way to generate treatment options using the database structures.” As above, the Examiner notes that the invention is the application of technology to the abstract idea and not a technological improvement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuo et al., US 2005/0192835 although published more than a year before the in-part filing date, it is not clear that this is prior art. Applying the output data stream to improve a dental appliance or a dental appliance usage.
Sachdeva et al US 2004/0197727 A method and workstation for evaluation of an orthodontic treatment plan for a patient.
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 Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626