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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 29, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments filed on October 27, 2025, has been entered and made of record.
Currently Pending Claim(s) 1-23
Independent Claim(s) 1
Amended Claim(s) 1-23
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks made in an Amendment received on October 27, 2025.
In view of amendments filed on October 27, 2025, to the claims, the Applicant has amended claims 1-23 to include details of the system including at least one processor and memory. Additionally, claim 1 was amended to specify that individual teeth and attachments are identified in each image. However, the Examiner believes that these claims in their amended state are still too broad to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 102, and the rejections are updated in the body of rejection below to address the amendments.
In view of Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed October 27, 2025, with respect to the claims, the Applicant argued (on Remarks pages 6-7) that, regarding claim 1, Giegerich (US 2023/0404709 A1) fails to teach detection of individual teeth and attachments in each of the images, since Giegerich evaluates the teeth and the attachments simply “based on the images.” Also, the Applicant argued that Giegerich does not teach or suggest combining the assignments of each of the plurality of images for attachment detection results.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Giegerich teaches receiving left, center, and right buccal images and evaluating the images by comparing the number of counted brackets to the dental plan [0013]. All attachments may not be visible in each image, which is accounted for since Giegerich requires multiple images from different views. Giegerich teaches an image capture guide [0041, Fig. 9] to ensure that enough views are captured for the evaluation process. Additionally, although Giegerich does not specifically use the word detecting, Giegerich teaches evaluating each attachment’s position relative to the treatment plan, evaluating the dimensions of each tooth, evaluating the distances between teeth, and evaluating the distance between the center-point of the wire slot for each bracket from the center-point of the slot of the proximate tooth [0044]. Evaluating all of these using a plurality of views would require detecting the teeth and attachments in each image and combining the results.
Next, the Applicant provides further examples to support the argument using dependent claims 16-17 and 20.
For claim 16, the Applicant argued (on Remarks page 7) that Giegerich fails to teach identifying which teeth can be seen in the image. The Examiner had presented paragraph 0079 to show that multiple different views are required to adequately image the patient’s teeth for evaluation. 0079 teaches capturing left, center, and right buccal images for the AI to evaluate the brackets and the anatomical features of the patient. As mentioned above, 0044 teaches evaluating the attachments and each tooth. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to conclude that not all teeth would be visible in each buccal image from different views (this is also supported by Winter who shows which teeth would be visible in each view), thus, the system can only identify and evaluate the teeth and attachments which are visible in each image.
For claim 17, the Applicant argued (on Remarks pages 7-8) that Giegerich fails to teach determining that an attachment is missing if a single image depicts less than the expected number of attachments. The Examiner had presented paragraph 0084, which teaches that the system alerts a user if the number of attachments counted is less than the number of attachments in the saved treatment plan. This evaluation is conducted by examining each image of different views to count the number of attachments [0044]. Therefore, the system can identify if an attachment is missing in an image.
For claim 20, the Applicant argued (on Remarks page 8) that Giegerich fails to teach determining that an attachment is missing when a majority of the plurality of images that depict the tooth also depict less than the expected number of attachments. The Examiner had presented paragraphs 0013 and 0084 to show that images of different views are evaluated, and as discussed above, the system is capable of combining the results of the images to determine if the correct number of attachments are present [0044]. The process of evaluating and counting attachments across multiple views would require the logical reasoning that an attachment is missing when it repeatedly fails to appear across multiple images depicting the same tooth.
Thus, the Examiner maintains the rejection applied to claim 1, so the rejections applied to the dependent claims 2-23 are maintained.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 4, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Giegerich (US 2023/0404709 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Giegerich teaches a system for dental treatment one or more processors and a memory operably coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors ([0014] “The method includes the steps of receiving images of the patient's teeth at a central processor from an image capture device, comparing the images of the patient's teeth with the plurality of brackets mounted thereon and the wire to the first treatment plan and previous images of the patient's teeth stored in the central processor,”), cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a plurality of images of a patient’s dentition ([0036] “Periodically, the patient or a friend or family member will take new images of the patient's arches without coming into the office and upload them to their patient record and to the central processor 5.” [0037] “The occlusal images are transmitted to the central processor 5 for analysis by the software modules and development of the treatment plan for the patient.”);
identifying, in each of the plurality of images, individual teeth of the patient’s dentition ([0044] “The images are evaluated for a number of factors to determine at least one or more of the following: ...(5) distances between each proximal tooth, including one of the following dimensions—the incisal edges, the first visible section of the tooth as it protrudes from the gum and the mid-point between the incisal edge and first visible portion of the tooth, (6) the visible size of each patient's teeth—height, width and surface area,”);
detecting, in each of the plurality of images, one or more attachments on the patient’s dentition ([0044] “The images are evaluated for a number of factors to determine at least one or more of the following: (1) which wires 136 are in place and the sizes of the wires 136 (2) whether all brackets 138 that should be attached are still attached and whether their current position is consistent with the computer modeling stored in the patient record that identifies the preferred initial position,” [0045] “Based on the images collected by the preferred system, a software module of the central processor 5 may detect the diameter, shape, material, and related features of the wires 136 via imaging to determine their material and/or gauge and other features,”);
assigning, based on the plurality of images, each of the one or more attachments to one of the individual teeth depicted in the plurality of images (([0044] “The images are evaluated for a number of factors to determine at least one or more of the following: … (7) distance between the center-point of wire slot for each bracket 138 from the center-point of the slot of the proximate tooth,” Here, the system is able to determine the proximal tooth to a detected attachment.);
combining the assignments of each of the plurality of images for attachment detection results ([0044] “In the preferred embodiment, the patient's orthodontic needs, requirements and potential treatment plans are evaluated once the images are uploaded to the patient record on the remote server. The images are preferably evaluated by a computer program using at least one of: image processing, artificial intelligence (“AI”) and machine learning in the central processor 5. The images are evaluated for a number of factors to determine at least one or more of the following: (1) which wires 136 are in place and the sizes of the wires 136 (2) whether all brackets 138 that should be attached are still attached and whether their current position is consistent with the computer modeling stored in the patient record that identifies the preferred initial position,”).
Regarding claim 4, Giegerich teaches wherein the identifying the individual teeth includes assigning each identified tooth to a corresponding tooth in a patient’s treatment plan ([0049] “In young patients, teeth are still erupting/coming in and the clinician or patient are unable to bond the bracket 138 to the tooth until the tooth fully in or mostly extending into the patient's mouth. The preferred system and method utilize the collected images for multiple appointments or image collection sessions to track progressing of eruption/coming in of teeth and when to apply a bracket 138 to the new tooth. The sequential images collected by the preferred system and method may also indicate to the clinician or the software module that a particular tooth may be ripe for extraction, gum laceration to aid eruption of the tooth, bonding of the bracket 38 to the partially erupted tooth to expedite full eruption of the tooth or other treatments based on the sequence of images and the treatment plan.” The individual teeth and their progression over time are considered as part of the individual’s treatment plan.).
Regarding claim 15, Geigerich teaches wherein the memory storing the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform further operations comprising: determining a number of attachments that should be on each tooth based on the number of attachments placed on each tooth in the patient’s treatment plan ([Claim 40] “…indicating whether the predetermined number of brackets is equal to the number of brackets, the predetermined bracket position complies with the bracket position…”, [0061] “The evaluation preferably compares the treatment prescription, as detailed in the patient record, to the imaging to determine at least one of: (1) identifying which arch wires 136 are in the patient's mouth, (2) whether there is a stop installed on the archwire 136 and whether the stop 140 is appropriately positioned, (3) whether all brackets 138 prescribed are still attached, (4) whether any brackets 138 are damaged or appear to be loose, (5) whether any brackets 138 are out of position relative to the 3D model detailing the optimal bracket placement which is stored in the patient's treatment records, (6) whether each bracket 138 is properly engaged as is described in further detail herein (See at least ¶32), (7) whether the prescribed elastic is being used and if it is mounted appropriately on the bracket posts prescribed…”).
Regarding claim 16, Giegerich teaches wherein combining the assignments of each of the plurality of images for attachment detection results includes:
for each image, identifying which teeth can be seen in the image ([0079] “The images preferably include left, center and right buccal images to capture at least one images of each of the brackets 138 and the full length of the wire 136 but are not so limited and may be comprised of less or more images that the central processor 5 is able to utilize to check the brackets 138 and wire 136 or other dental hygiene or anatomic features of the patient.”);
determining for each respective tooth, whether or not a single image of the plurality of images depicts an expected number of attachments on the respective tooth ([0044] “The images are evaluated for a number of factors to determine at least one or more of the following: (1) which wires 136 are in place and the sizes of the wires 136 (2) whether all brackets 138 that should be attached are still attached and whether their current position is consistent with the computer modeling stored in the patient record that identifies the preferred initial position,” [0084] “The comparison also includes identifying a number of brackets 138 in the images of the patient's arches, a bracket position in the images of the patient's arches, and an archwire 136 in the images of the patient's arches and comparing the predetermined number of brackets 138 to the number of brackets 138, the predetermined bracket position to the bracket position and the predetermined archwire 136 to the archwire 136. The method also includes transmitting a check-out message from the central processor 5 indicating whether the predetermined number of brackets is equal to the number of brackets, the predetermined bracket position complies with the bracket position and the predetermined archwire 136 complies with the archwire.”).
Regarding claim 17, Giegerich teaches wherein the memory storing the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform further operations comprising: determining that an attachment is missing if a single image depicts less than the expected number of attachments ([0044] “The images are evaluated for a number of factors to determine at least one or more of the following: (1) which wires 136 are in place and the sizes of the wires 136 (2) whether all brackets 138 that should be attached are still attached and whether their current position is consistent with the computer modeling stored in the patient record that identifies the preferred initial position,” [0084] “The comparison also includes identifying a number of brackets 138 in the images of the patient's arches… The method also includes transmitting a check-out message from the central processor 5 indicating whether the predetermined number of brackets is equal to the number of brackets,”).
Regarding claim 18, Giegerich teaches wherein the memory storing the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform further operations comprising: determining that an attachment is missing if the plurality of images depicts less than the expected number of attachments ([0044] “The images are evaluated for a number of factors to determine at least one or more of the following: (1) which wires 136 are in place and the sizes of the wires 136 (2) whether all brackets 138 that should be attached are still attached and whether their current position is consistent with the computer modeling stored in the patient record that identifies the preferred initial position,” [0084] “The comparison also includes identifying a number of brackets 138 in the images of the patient's arches… The method also includes transmitting a check-out message from the central processor 5 indicating whether the predetermined number of brackets is equal to the number of brackets,”).
Regarding claim 20, Giegerich teaches wherein combining the assignments of each of the plurality of images for attachment detection results ([0015] “The comparison includes identifying a number of brackets in the images of the patient's arches, a bracket position in the images of the patient's arches and an archwire in the images of the patient's arches.” A plurality of images are used when determining the attachment detection results.) includes:
for each image, identifying which teeth can be seen in the image ([0015] “The images include left, center, and right buccal images. The images are captured with an image capture device. The evaluation involves comparing the images of the patient's arches to a treatment plan stored in the central processor.” The server examines images of different views to determine that the bracket placement on each tooth aligns with the dental treatment plan. This occurs with images that are constrained to only a subset of the patient’s teeth. Therefore, the server is capable of identifying which teeth are in each photo.); and
determining that an attachment is missing ([0013] “The method includes the steps of receiving images of the patient's arches, the images including left, center and right buccal images, evaluating the images at a central server, the evaluating involves comparing at least one of a predetermined number of brackets with a number of brackets identified in the images,”)
when a majority of the plurality of images that depict the tooth also depict less than an expected number of attachments ([0084] “The comparison also includes identifying a number of brackets 138 in the images of the patient's arches… The method also includes transmitting a check-out message from the central processor 5 indicating whether the predetermined number of brackets is equal to the number of brackets… The check-out message may also be comprised of an error message if the comparison identifies a failure in the comparison, an identification of other errors, such as gum disease identification, tooth decay or other errors identified by the comparison with the central processor 5.” The system uses a full set of images to compare to the treatment plan when evaluating the expected number of attachments.).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giegerich, further in view of Lo et al. (Prototype of Augmented Reality Technology for Orthodontic Bracket Positioning: An In Vivo Study. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2315.), hereafter Lo.
Regarding claim 2, although Giegerich teaches identifying individual teeth and even creating a model of the patient’s teeth from radiographs, Giegerich fails to specifically teach segmenting the individual teeth of the patient’s dentition contained in the image. However, Lo teaches wherein identifying, from the plurality of images, individual teeth of the patient’s dentition includes segmenting the individual teeth of the patient’s dentition contained in the image ([Section 2.3] “Collecting real-time images captured by the intraoral camera, the FACC module segmented the image of each tooth through computer-vision–based image analysis, thereby generating dental features that included the complete contour and FACC of each tooth.”).
Giegerich and Lo are analogous in the art because both teach methods of analyzing and correcting orthodontic attachments on a patient’s dentition using image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by segmenting the observed teeth to allow for the analysis of each tooth specifically. Additionally, this modification allows for dental features for each individual tooth to be analyzed (Lo [Section 2.3] “the FACC module segmented the image of each tooth through computer-vision–based image analysis, thereby generating dental features that included the complete contour and FACC of each tooth. The bracket bonding navigation module overlapped the real-time image with the bracket bonding positions determined during preoperational planning, thereby achieving preoperational planning visualization.”).
Regarding claim 3, Giegerich fails to teach wherein segmenting the individual teeth includes determining which teeth are located in the image and which pixels of the image are a part of each tooth. However, Lo teaches wherein segmenting the individual teeth includes determining which teeth are located in the image and which pixels of the image are a part of each tooth ([Section 2.3.1] “Specifically, the algorithm, targeting regions of interest in each tooth extracted from the morphological analysis, implemented foreground image segmentation using source and sink nodes, foreground–background separation, graph cuts, and energy function. During image segmentation, pixels were considered nodes, and these nodes comprised two types, namely source nodes and sink nodes. Source nodes represented the foreground image of regions of interest, whereas sink nodes indicated unwanted background image regions.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by determining individual teeth locations based on the pixels of the image. This modification would allow dental features of each individual tooth to be analyzed, and this method provides a method for distinguishing between teeth and the image background (Lo [Section 2.3.1] “This technique can create a great pixel difference on the edge of the target image, allowing the system to distinguish regional foregrounds from backgrounds, isolate the tooth contour, and achieve tooth segmentation.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giegerich, further in view of Pimenov et al. (US 2020/0155274 A1), hereafter Pimenov.
Regarding claim 5, Giegerich fails to teach removing a tooth that is not present in the patient’s treatment plan. However, Pimenov teaches wherein the identifying the individual teeth includes removing a tooth that is not present in the patient’s treatment plan ([0040] “The methods described below can be integrated into an orthodontic treatment plan when a patient has been identified as having one or more missing teeth. Identifying that a patient's arch contains missing teeth may be made automatically (e.g., using a computing device). For example, identification can be performed by a computing system automatically by evaluating data (such as a scan or dental impression) of the patient's teeth or arches.”).
Giegerich and Pimenov are analogous in the art because both teach methods of analyzing a patient’s teeth utilizing image analysis for the purpose of creating and/or updating a dental treatment plan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by removing missing teeth from the treatment plan. This modification would allow for teeth to be properly numbered, because missing teeth often cause the misidentification of other teeth ([0043] “A basic tooth segmentation process that scans along the teeth curve is likely to fail to identify missing or unerupted teeth, and is also likely to improperly number the identified teeth. since all teeth are typically numbered sequentially.”).
Claim 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giegerich, further in view of Raslambekov (EP 3831331 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Giegerich fails to teach a bounding box around each detected attachment. However, Raslambekov teaches wherein the memory storing the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform further operations comprising: forming a bounding box around each detected attachment ([0031] “…generating a bounding box around portions of the orthodontic appliance, the bounding box around each portion of the orthodontic appliance being represented by a plurality of the vector points, the bounding box around each portion of the orthodontic appliance being an axis aligned boundary box; identifying at least one pair of appliance-tooth bounding boxes of at least one of the portions of the orthodontic appliance and the plurality of teeth that intersect one another; defining an area of overlap of the at least one pair of appliance-tooth bounding boxes of each portion of the orthodontic appliance and the associated tooth that intersect one another;” [0057] “Orthodontic appliances 10 used in certain optimized or determined orthodontic treatments, according to certain embodiments of the present technology, include bracket/ archwire systems 10a (FIGS. 1 and 2), or aligner systems 10b (FIGS. 3 and 4), amongst others.”).
Giegerich and Raslambekov are analogous in the art because both teach methods of using image analysis for monitoring orthodontic treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by using bounding boxes to specify detected attachments and teeth. This modification allows for comparisons to be made between the areas of tooth and attachment bounding boxes, such as determining collision between the two boxes (Raslambekov [0031] “identifying a subset of the cells of the 3D grid which include the mapped area of overlap of the pair of appliance-tooth bounding boxes, and for only the subset of the cells determining a distance between the vector points relating to the tooth and the appliance; and selectively executing: if the determined distance is less than a predetermined distance, determining that there is a collision between the orthodontic appliance and the tooth,”).
Regarding claim 9, Giegerich teaches assigning each of the one or more attachments to one of the individual teeth ([0044] “The images are evaluated for a number of factors to determine at least one or more of the following: … (7) distance between the center-point of wire slot for each bracket 138 from the center-point of the slot of the proximate tooth,” Here, the system is able to determine the proximal tooth to a detected attachment.).
Giegerich fails to teach determining an area of each tooth within the bounding box. However, Raslambekov teaches determining an area of each tooth within the bounding box ([0173] “…the mapped area of overlap 330 of the pair of appliance-tooth bounding boxes,”); and
assigning the attachment to the tooth based on which tooth has a greatest area within the bounding box ([0171] “An area of overlap 330 of the appliance-tooth bounding box pair is then identified (i.e. the area of overlap between the intersecting tooth bounding box and the appliance bounding box pair).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by using the amount of overlap between the attachment bounding box and a surrounding tooth in order to assign the attachment to its corresponding tooth. This modification allows for collisions between appliances and teeth to be mapped, which is an important step in analyzing the progression of orthodontic treatment (Raslambekov [0174] “If the determined distance is less than a predetermined distance, the method 300 comprises determining that there is a collision between a portion of the orthodontic appliance 10 and the tooth 16.”).
Regarding claim 10, Giegerich teaches assigning each of the one or more attachments to one of the individual teeth ([0044] “The images are evaluated for a number of factors to determine at least one or more of the following: … (7) distance between the center-point of wire slot for each bracket 138 from the center-point of the slot of the proximate tooth,” Here, the system is able to determine the proximal tooth to a detected attachment.).
Giegerich fails to teach determining an amount of overlap of one or more teeth and a vertical mesial edge of the bounding box and assigning the attachment to a tooth of the one or more teeth with the greatest amount of overlap. However, Raslambekov teaches determining an amount of overlap of one or more teeth and a vertical mesial edge of the bounding box ([0171] “An area of overlap 330 of the appliance-tooth bounding box pair is then identified (i.e. the area of overlap between the intersecting tooth bounding box and the appliance bounding box pair.” Additionally see Figs. 14-15. Fig. 15 shows the collision between two tooth bounding boxes, which occurs on the mesial edge of tooth 332.).; and
assigning the attachment to a tooth of the one or more teeth with the greatest amount of overlap ([0172] “The area of overlap 330 of the appliance-tooth bounding box pair is then mapped onto the plurality of vector points representative of the plurality of teeth 16, the plurality of vector points populating the 3D grid 334 of the simulation space 315.” [0173] “The method continues with identifying a subset of the cells of the 3D grid 334 which include the mapped area of overlap 330 of the pair of appliance-tooth bounding boxes, and for only the subset of the cells, a distance between the vector points relating to the tooth and the tooth is determined.” The overlap between the edge of the appliance bounding box and the surrounding teeth is used when determining collisions between the appliance and one or more other teeth.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by using the amount of overlap between a vertical mesial edge of the attachment bounding box and surrounding teeth in order to assign the attachment to its corresponding tooth. This modification allows for collisions between appliances and teeth to be mapped, which is an important step in analyzing the progression of orthodontic treatment (Raslambekov [0174] “If the determined distance is less than a predetermined distance, the method 300 comprises determining that there is a collision between a portion of the orthodontic appliance 10 and the tooth 16.”).
Regarding claim 11, Giegerich teaches wherein assigning the attachment to the tooth is constrained to teeth likely to be in a photo based on a particular view from which the photo is taken ([0015] “The images include left, center, and right buccal images. The images are captured with an image capture device. The evaluation involves comparing the images of the patient's arches to a treatment plan stored in the central processor. The treatment plan includes a predetermined number of brackets, a predetermined bracket position and a predetermined archwire. The comparison includes identifying a number of brackets in the images of the patient's arches, a bracket position in the images of the patient's arches and an archwire in the images of the patient's arches. The comparison also includes comparing the predetermined number of brackets to the number of brackets, the predetermined bracket position to the bracket position and the predetermined archwire to the archwire.” The server examines images of different views to determine that the bracket placement on each tooth aligns with the dental treatment plan. This occurs with images that are constrained to only a subset of the patient’s teeth.).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giegerich and Raslambekov, further in view of Lo.
Regarding claim 7, Giegerich teaches wherein assigning each of the one or more attachments to one of the individual teeth ([0044] “The images are evaluated for a number of factors to determine at least one or more of the following: … (7) distance between the center-point of wire slot for each bracket 138 from the center-point of the slot of the proximate tooth,” Here, the system is able to determine the proximal tooth to a detected attachment.).
Giegerich fails to teach determining the center point of the attachment bounding box and assigning the attachment to a tooth of the individual teeth based on where the center point is located.
However, Lo teaches determining a center point of the attachment bounding box (Fig. 6; [Section 2.6] “…the position of the bonded bracket R(Xr, Yr).”); and
assigning the attachment to a tooth of the individual teeth based on where the center point is located ([Section 2.7] “(1) The center of the bracket P(Xp, Yp) in preoperational planning.” For each bracket, the center point is placed on the bracket’s corresponding tooth.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by determining the corresponding tooth for a bracket based on the position of the center point of the bracket. This modification assists in identifying corresponding teeth to brackets since brackets are often placed on the front or rear face of the tooth (See Lo Fig. 6 showing the preoperative planning position and the actual applied bracket position on a tooth.).
Regarding claim 8, Giegerich teaches wherein assigning each of the one or more attachments to one of the individual teeth ([0044] “The images are evaluated for a number of factors to determine at least one or more of the following: … (7) distance between the center-point of wire slot for each bracket 138 from the center-point of the slot of the proximate tooth,” Here, the system is able to determine the proximal tooth to a detected attachment.).
Giegerich fails to teach determining a center point of the attachment bounding box and assigning the attachment to a tooth of the individual teeth based on a nearest tooth to where the center point is located.
However, Lo teaches determining a center point of the attachment bounding box (Fig. 6; [Section 2.6] “…the position of the bonded bracket R(Xr, Yr).”); and
assigning the attachment to a tooth of the individual teeth based on a nearest tooth to where the center point is located ([Section 2.7] “(1) The center of the bracket P(Xp, Yp) in preoperational planning.” For each bracket, the center point is placed on the bracket’s corresponding tooth.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by determining the corresponding tooth for a bracket based on the tooth’s closeness to the position of the center point of the bracket. This modification assists in identifying corresponding teeth to brackets since brackets are often placed on the front or rear face of the tooth (See Lo Fig. 6 showing the preoperative planning position and the actual applied bracket position on a tooth.).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giegerich, Raslambekov, further in view of Winter (“Recommended Photography Series” Spear Digest Dental Articles).
Regarding claim 12, Giegerich fails to that, in an anterior view, the teeth likely to be in the photo are the central and lateral incisors and canines. However, Winter teaches wherein in an anterior view the teeth likely to be in the photo are central and lateral incisors and canines (Image 10 shows a frontal view with anterior teeth separated by 2 to 4 mm. The central and lateral incisors and canines are clearly visible in the image.).
Giegerich and Winter are analogous in the art, because both teach methods of capturing images of a patient’s arches for purposes related to orthodontic treatments and analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by specifically analyzing the central and lateral incisors of an anterior image. This modification allows for focus only on the teeth which are clearly visible, and including anterior images allows for evaluation of both arches (Winter [Intra-oral Photographs, 10] “Frontal view with anterior teeth separated by 2 to 4 mm. This is used to evaluate: Tooth condition, position, arrangement and proportion, Incisal plane of both arches, Occlusal plane of both arches, Gingival condition and papillae levels”).
Regarding claim 13, Giegerich fails to teach that, in a left lateral view, the teeth likely to be in the photo are central incisors, left lateral incisors, left canines, first and second left bicuspids, and first left molars. However, Winter teaches wherein in a left lateral view the teeth likely to be in the photo are central incisors, left lateral incisors, left canines, first and second left bicuspids, and first left molars (Image 14 shows a left lateral view with an open bite. The central and left incisors, the left canines, the left bicuspids, and the first left molars are clearly visible in the image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by specifically analyzing the central incisors, left lateral incisors, left canines, first and second left bicuspids, and first left molars of a left lateral image. This modification allows for focus only on the teeth which are clearly visible, and including lateral images allows for the evaluation of incisal and occlusal planes, inclination of anterior teeth, etc. (Winter [Intra-oral Photographs, 14] “Buccal view, left lateral posterior with teeth separated by 2 to 4 mm, taken into the mirror. This is used for: Incisal and occlusal planes, Inclination of anterior teeth relative to occlusal plane, Tooth condition, position, arrangement and proportion, Gingival condition, gingival and papillae levels.”).
Regarding claim 14, Giegerich fails to teach that, in a right lateral view, the teeth likely to be in the photo are central incisors, right lateral incisors, right canines, first and second right bicuspids, and first right molars. However, Winter teaches wherein in a right lateral view the teeth likely to be in the photo are central incisors, right lateral incisors, right canines, first and second right bicuspids, and first right molars (Image 14 shows a right lateral view with an open bite. The central and right incisors, the right canines, the right bicuspids, and the first right molars are clearly visible in the image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by specifically analyzing the central incisors, right lateral incisors, right canines, first and second right bicuspids, and first right molars of a right lateral image. This modification allows for focus only on the teeth which are clearly visible, and including lateral images allows for the evaluation of incisal and occlusal planes, inclination of anterior teeth, etc. (Winter [Intra-oral Photographs, 14] “Buccal view, right lateral posterior with teeth separated by 2 to 4 mm, taken into the mirror. This is used for: Incisal and occlusal planes, Inclination of anterior teeth relative to occlusal plane, Tooth condition, position, arrangement and proportion, Gingival condition, gingival and papillae levels.”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giegerich, further in view of Litzenburger et al. (Diagnostic validity of early proximal caries detection using near‑infrared imaging technology on 3D range data of posterior teeth. Clinical Oral Investigations (2022) 26:543–553), hereafter Litzenburger.
Regarding claim 19, Giegerich teaches wherein combining the assignments of each of the plurality of images for attachment detection results ([0015] “The comparison includes identifying a number of brackets in the images of the patient's arches, a bracket position in the images of the patient's arches and an archwire in the images of the patient's arches.” A plurality of images are used when determining the attachment detection results.) includes:
for each image, identifying which teeth can be seen in the image ([0015] “The images include left, center, and right buccal images. The images are captured with an image capture device. The evaluation involves comparing the images of the patient's arches to a treatment plan stored in the central processor.” The server examines images of different views to determine that the bracket placement on each tooth aligns with the dental treatment plan. This occurs with images that are constrained to only a subset of the patient’s teeth. Therefore, the server is capable of identifying which teeth are in each photo.); and
determining that an attachment is missing ([0013] “The method includes the steps of receiving images of the patient's arches, the images including left, center and right buccal images, evaluating the images at a central server, the evaluating involves comparing at least one of a predetermined number of brackets with a number of brackets identified in the images,”).
Giegerich fails to teach determining that an attachment is missing when less than a majority of the plurality of images that depict the tooth also depict an expected number of attachments. However, Litzenburger teaches determining that an attachment is missing when less than a majority of the plurality of images that depict the tooth also depict an expected number of attachments ([Page 4, Par. 5] “A distinction between sound (0) and carious (1) areas was performed for all three views, occlusal, buccal and lingual, meaning three scorings per sample. For the trilateral assessment of the NIRR images, all three scorings of a proximal surface (buccal, occlusal or lingual) were combined. A surface was considered diseased if only one angle scored 1 and healthy if all three angles scored 0.” Here, Litzenburger is identifying cavities on teeth rather than attachments, but Litzenburger determines that presence of a cavity when less than a majority of the images depict a cavity.).
Giegerich and Litzenburger are analogous in the art because both teach methods of detection in images of teeth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giergich’s invention by determining that an attachment is missing when less than a majority of the images depict an expected number of attachments—in the same way that Litzenburger determines a cavity when only 1 of 3 images depicts a cavity. This modification considers that dental attachments and cavities will only be visible in some photos since many are taken from different angles; thus, only a minority of the photos may display the correct result ([Page 2, Par. 3] “Since images are taken from different angles, the tooth surface can be recorded from all sides.”).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giegerich, further in view of Winter.
Regarding claim 21, Giegerich teaches the use of an image capture guide which instructs patients on image capturing of his/her own arches, including several buccal images (See paragraphs 0014 and 0015.), but Giegerich fails to specifically teach images with arches in an open-bite. However, Winter teaches wherein the plurality of images include images with arches in an open-bite (Image 10 shows a frontal view with anterior teeth separated by 2 to 4 mm.).
Giegerich and Winter are analogous in the art, because both teach methods of capturing images of a patient’s arches for purposes related to orthodontic treatments and analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by including open-bite images in the image capturing guide. This modification allows for images which are used to evaluate the incisal and occlusal plane of both arches (Winter [Intra-oral Photographs, 10] “Frontal view with anterior teeth separated by 2 to 4 mm. This is used to evaluate: Tooth condition, position, arrangement and proportion, Incisal plane of both arches, Occlusal plane of both arches, Gingival condition and papillae levels”).
Regarding claim 22, Giegerich teaches the use of an image capture guide which instructs patients on image capturing of his/her own arches, including several buccal images (See paragraphs 0014 and 0015.), but Giegerich fails to specifically teach images with arches in a closed-bite. However, Winter teaches wherein the plurality of images include images with arches in a closed-bite (Image 9 shows a frontal view with a closed bite.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by including closed-bite images in the image capturing guide. This modification allows for images which are used to evaluate anterior overbite (Winter [Intra-oral Photographs, 9] “Frontal view with teeth in maximum intercuspation. This is used to evaluate: Anterior overbite, Tooth condition, position, arrangement, and proportion, Gingival condition, gingival, and papillae level”).
Regarding claim 23, Giegerich fails to teach anterior and lateral images. However, Winter teaches wherein the plurality of images include an anterior image with arches in an open-bite (Image 10 shows a frontal view with anterior teeth separated by 2 to 4 mm.), a left lateral image with the arches in the open-bite (Image 14 shows a left lateral posterior with teeth separated by 2 to 4 mm.), a right lateral image with the arches in the open-bite (Image 13 shows a right lateral posterior with teeth separated by 2 to 4 mm.), an anterior image with the arches in a closed-bite (Image 9 shows a frontal view with a closed bite.), a left lateral image with the arches in the closed-bite (Image 12 shows a left lateral posterior with a closed bite.), and a right lateral image with the arches in the closed-bite (Image 11 shows a right lateral posterior with a closed bite.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giegerich’s invention by including lateral and anterior images in the image capturing guide. This modification allows for anterior images for evaluating tooth arrangement, overbite, etc., and for lateral images for evaluating incisal and occlusal planes, inclination of anterior teeth, etc. (Winter [Intra-oral Photographs, 9] “Frontal view with teeth in maximum intercuspation. This is used to evaluate: Anterior overbite, Tooth condition, position, arrangement, and proportion, Gingival condition, gingival, and papillae level.” [Intra-oral Photographs, 13] “Buccal view, right lateral posterior with teeth separated by 2 to 4 mm, taken into the mirror. This is used for: Incisal and occlusal planes, Inclination of anterior teeth relative to occlusal plane, Tooth condition, position, arrangement, and proportion, Gingival condition, gingival, and papillae levels.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tuzoff et al. (Tooth detection and numbering in panoramic radiographs using convolutional neural networks. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 48, 4.) teaches detecting and numbering teeth automatically in panoramic radiographs using a CNN.
Chen et al. (A deep learning approach to automatic teeth detection and numbering based on object detection in dental periapical films. Sci Rep 9, 3840.) teaches detecting and numbering individual teeth in dental periapical films using a R-CNN. The method involves evaluation by comparing the intersection-over-union of the detected teeth bounding boxes and the ground truth bounding boxes obtained through manual annotation.
Wong et al. (US 12,465,464 B2) teaches a method for generating a surface contour of a patient’s teeth from images collected by a probe. Outlines and a dental chart are generated using the surface contour.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC JAMES SHOEMAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6605. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am to 5pm ET.
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, JENNIFER MEHMOOD, can be reached at (571)272-2976. 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.
/Eric Shoemaker/
Patent Examiner
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664