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 1, 12 and 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1 change “a first orthodontic appliance” to “a first and second orthodontic appliance”.
Claim 1, lines 4-5 change “the orthodontic treatment plan further comprises the use of a second orthodontic appliance” to “the orthodontic treatment plan comprises the use of the first and second orthodontic appliance”.
Claim 12, lines 2-3 change “a first orthodontic appliance” to “a first and second orthodontic appliance”.
Claim 12, lines 7-8 change “the orthodontic treatment plan further comprises the use of a second orthodontic appliance” to “the orthodontic treatment plan comprises the use of the first and second orthodontic appliance”.
Claim 21, line 2 change “a first orthodontic appliance” to “a first and second orthodontic appliance”
Claim 21, lines 4-5 change “the orthodontic treatment plan further comprises the use of a second orthodontic appliance” to “the orthodontic treatment plan comprises the use of the first and second orthodontic appliance”
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alauddin et al (US 2017/0056131).
Regarding claim 12, Alauddin discloses a method comprising:
providing a first orthodontic appliance (see figures 3-4) comprising an aligner body (aligner 10) with a plurality of teeth receiving cavities shaped to reposition a patient’s teeth from an initial arrangement towards a target arrangement according to an orthodontic treatment plan (see figures 3-4 and par 69 discloses the orthodontic aligner being used in a treatment plan to move from a preliminary to final position), wherein a plurality of sensors (sensors 18 a/b) are coupled to the aligner body or on attachment anchors configured to couple the aligner body to the patient’s teeth (see figures 2-3), wherein the orthodontic treatment plan further comprises the use of a second orthodontic appliance (par 67 discloses the patient being fitted for a new aligner, which would be a second aligner);
periodically applying an electromagnetic field from an electromagnetic field generator coupled to the aligner body (par 47 discloses the application of electromagnetic signals to the components of the sensor 18 to receive data regarding the sensors/aligner);
receiving, in a processor, sensor data from the plurality of sensors, wherein the sensor data indicates one or more of a position of the patient’s tooth and an orientation of the patient’s tooth (par 34-35 discloses the use of a plurality of sensors to collect pressure information which is used in a treatment tracking software application and par 61 discloses the use of an interface that translates the pressure data from the sensors to information regarding the position of the teeth/tooth in the patient’s mouth); and
modifying the orthodontic treatment plan based on the sensor data, wherein the modifying comprises automatically modifying a duration of time that the second orthodontic appliance is worn by the patient (par 74 discloses the collected information being processed and evaluated to determine if it is within a specific range and then a notification being provided to a treatment professional to establish when moving to the next aligner is appropriate, this would mean modifying the duration of the use of each orthodontic appliance used including a second if determined necessary).
Regarding claim 14, Alauddin discloses periodically applying the electromagnetic field from an electromagnetic field generator comprises applying the electromagnetic field between every two hours and every two weeks (par 72 discloses getting readings every 4 hours to every day and getting a reading requires the application of electromagnetic signals).
Regarding claim 15, Alauddin discloses the sensor data includes force sensor data, wherein the force sensor data indicates one or more of: an amount of force applied to the patient’s teeth and a direction of force applied to the patient’s teeth (par 34 discloses the use of the system and computer program to quantify the amount of force applied during the orthodontic treatment and par 39 discloses the measuring of the pressure and/or force applied to the teeth of the corresponding tooth).
Regarding claim 16, Alauddin further discloses determining forces acting on the patient's teeth from the force sensor data (par 39 discloses the measurement of force on the aligner exerted on the corresponding tooth).
Regarding claim 17, Alauddin discloses modifying comprises modifying comprises modifying the orthodontic treatment plan based on a determined tooth movement based on the determined forces acting on the patient’s teeth. (par 67- 69 discloses the use of the movement and calculated force data for treatment information to evaluate and modify treatment plans, such as creating a new aligner).
Regarding claim 18, Alauddin discloses receiving comprises receiving the sensor data at intervals of between every hour and every 2 weeks (par 72 discloses getting readings every 4 hours to every day).
Regarding claim 19, Alauddin discloses wirelessly transmitting the sensor (18) data from the first orthodontic appliance to the processor, wherein the processor comprises a remote processor (the processor being within the detection instrument 56 which collects output signals and par 50 discloses this can be wirelessly).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alauddin et al in view of Li et al (US 2011/0136072).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Alauddin discloses a system comprising:
a first orthodontic appliance having an aligner body (aligner 10) with a plurality of teeth receiving cavities shaped to reposition a patient’s teeth from an initial arrangement towards a target arrangement according to an orthodontic treatment plan (see figures 3-4 and par 69 discloses the orthodontic aligner being used in a treatment plan to move from a preliminary to final position), wherein the orthodontic treatment plan further comprises the use of a second orthodontic appliance (par 67 discloses the patient being fitted for a new aligner, which would be a second aligner);
a plurality of sensors (sensors 18a/b) coupled to the aligner body or on the attachment anchors (see figures 3-4);
one or more processors (processor 78 of the detection instrument 56) configured to:
receive sensor data from the plurality of sensors (par 34-35 discloses the use of a plurality of sensors collect pressure information which is used in a treatment tracking software application), wherein the sensor data indicates one or more of: a position of the patient’s tooth and an orientation of the patient’s tooth (par 61 discloses the use of an interface that translates the pressure data from the sensors to information regarding the position of the teeth/tooth in the patient’s mouth);and
modify the orthodontic treatment plan based on the sensor data, wherein the modifying comprises automatically modifying a duration for the second orthodontic appliance of the orthodontic treatment plan (par 74 discloses the collected information being processed and evaluated to determine if it is within a specific range and then a notification being provided to a treatment professional to establish when moving to the next aligner is appropriate, this would mean modifying the duration of the use of each orthodontic appliance used including a second if determined necessary).
Alauddin fails to disclose one or more attachment anchors configured to couple the aligner body to the patient’s teeth;
Li further teaches providing an attachment anchors (attachment device 40) configured to couple the aligner body to the patient's teeth (see figure 4A and par 60 discloses the device attaches to a tooth 12), wherein the aligner body (appliance 10, see par 60) comprises one or more attachment sites (receiving well 20) for coupling to one or more attachment anchors (par 60-61) for the purpose of increasing the quality of fit or attachment of the orthodontic appliance to a tooth (par 52).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alauddin by providing the attachment anchors configured to couple the aligner body to the patient's teeth, wherein the aligner body comprises attachment sites for coupling to the attachment anchors as taught by Li for the purpose of increasing the quality of fit or attachment of the orthodontic appliance to a tooth.
Regarding claim 2, Alauddin discloses modifying comprises modifying the configuration of a tooth receiving cavity of an aligner body of a second orthodontic appliance to be worn by the patient (par 67-68).
Regarding claim 3, Alauddin discloses modifying comprises modifying a duration of time that the first orthodontic appliance is worn by the patient (par 68 discloses changes in the duration of the time of the treatment).
Regarding claim 5, Alauddin discloses wherein the first orthodontic appliance is configured to periodically applying an electromagnetic field from an electromagnetic field generator coupled to the aligner body (par 47 discloses the application of electromagnetic signals to the components of the sensor 18 to receive data regarding the sensors/aligner).
Regarding claim 6, Alauddin further discloses the plurality of sensors include at least one force sensor that is configured to collect force sensor data (par 34 discloses the use of the system and computer program to quantify the amount of force applied during the orthodontic treatment) which indicates one or more of: an amount of force applied to the patient's teeth and a direction of force applied to the patient's teeth (par 39 discloses the measuring of the pressure and/or force applied to the teeth of the corresponding tooth).
Regarding claim 7, Alauddin further discloses the one or more processors is further configured to determine forces acting on the patient's teeth from the force sensor data (par 39 discloses the measurement of force on the aligner exerted on the corresponding tooth).
Regarding claim 8, Alauddin further discloses the one or more processors is further configured to determine tooth movement based on the forces acting on the patient's teeth (par 68 discloses the modification of the treatment based on the calculated force and tooth movement).
Regarding claim 9, Alauddin discloses the one or more processors is configured to receive sensor data at intervals of between every hour and every 2 weeks (par 72 discloses getting readings every 4 hours to every day).
Regarding claim 10, Alauddin discloses the first orthodontic appliance is configured to wirelessly transmit the sensor data (18) from the first orthodontic appliance to the one or more processor, wherein the one or more processor comprises a remote processor (the processor being within the detection instrument 56 which collects output signals and par 50 discloses this can be wirelessly).
Regarding claim 21, Alauddin discloses a system comprising: a first orthodontic appliance (see figures 3-4) having an aligner body (20) with a plurality of teeth receiving cavities shaped to reposition a patient’s teeth from an initial arrangement towards a target arrangement according to an orthodontic treatment plan (see figures 3-4 and par 69 discloses the orthodontic aligner being used in a treatment plan to move from a preliminary to final position), wherein the orthodontic treatment plan further comprises the use of a second orthodontic appliance (par 67 discloses the patient being fitted for a new aligner, which would be a second aligner);
a plurality of sensors (18 a/b) coupled to the aligner body or on the attachment anchors (see figures 3-4);
one or more processors (processor 78 of the detection instrument 56) configured to:
receive sensor data from the plurality of sensors (par 34-35 discloses the use of a plurality of sensors collect pressure information which is used in a treatment tracking software application), wherein the sensor data indicated one or more of a position of the patient’s tooth and an orientation of the patient’s tooth (par 61 discloses the use of an interface that translates the pressure data from the sensors to information regarding the position of the teeth/tooth in the patient’s mouth);
determine one or more of: tooth movement and forces on the patient’s teeth from the sensor data (par 34 discloses the use of the system and computer program to quantify the amount of force applied during the orthodontic treatment and par 39 discloses the measuring of the pressure and/or force applied to the teeth of the corresponding tooth);
modify the orthodontic treatment plan based on the determined one or more of: tooth movement and forces on the patient’s teeth from the sensor data , wherein the modifying comprises automatically modifying a duration for the second orthodontic appliance of the orthodontic treatment plan (par 74 discloses the collected information being processed and evaluated to determine if it is within a specific range and then a notification being provided to a treatment professional to establish when moving to the next aligner is appropriate, this would mean modifying the duration of the use of each orthodontic appliance used including a second if determined necessary).
Alauddin fails to disclose one or more attachment anchors configured to couple the aligner body to the patient’s teeth;
Li further teaches providing an attachment anchors (attachment device 40) configured to couple the aligner body to the patient's teeth (see figure 4A and par 60 discloses the device attaches to a tooth 12), wherein the aligner body (appliance 10, see par 60) comprises one or more attachment sites (receiving well 20) for coupling to one or more attachment anchors (par 60-61) for the purpose of increasing the quality of fit or attachment of the orthodontic appliance to a tooth (par 52).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alauddin by providing the attachment anchors configured to couple the aligner body to the patient's teeth, wherein the aligner body comprises attachment sites for coupling to the attachment anchors as taught by Li for the purpose of increasing the quality of fit or attachment of the orthodontic appliance to a tooth.
Regarding claim 22, Alauddin discloses a system comprising: a first orthodontic appliance (see figures 3-4) of a sequence of orthodontic appliances (par 61 discloses the next aligner being used in a treatment), the first orthodontic appliance having an aligner body with a plurality of teeth receiving cavities shaped to reposition a patient’s teeth from an initial arrangement towards a target arrangement according to an orthodontic treatment plan (see figures 3-4 and par 69 discloses the orthodontic aligner being used in a treatment plan to move from a preliminary to final position), wherein the orthodontic treatment plan further comprises the use of a second orthodontic appliance that is immediately next in the sequence of orthodontic appliances in the orthodontic treatment plan (par 61 discloses the use of the next aligner after a threshold measurement is reached and par 67 discloses the patient being fitted for a new aligner, which would be a second aligner),
a plurality of sensors (18 a/b) coupled to the aligner body or on the attachment anchors (see figures 3-4);
one or more processors (processor 78 of the detection instrument 56) configured to:
receive sensor data from the plurality of sensors (par 34-35 discloses the use of a plurality of sensors collect pressure information which is used in a treatment tracking software application); and
modify the orthodontic treatment plan based on the sensor data, wherein the modifying comprises automatically modifying the duration for the second orthodontic appliance (par 74 discloses the collected information being processed and evaluated to determine if it is within a specific range and then a notification being provided to a treatment professional to establish when moving to the next aligner is appropriate, this would mean modifying the duration of the use of each orthodontic appliance used including a second if determined necessary).+
Alauddin fails to disclose one or more attachment anchors configured to couple the aligner body to the patient’s teeth;
Li further teaches providing an attachment anchors (attachment device 40) configured to couple the aligner body to the patient's teeth (see figure 4A and par 60 discloses the device attaches to a tooth 12), wherein the aligner body (appliance 10, see par 60) comprises one or more attachment sites (receiving well 20) for coupling to one or more attachment anchors (par 60-61) for the purpose of increasing the quality of fit or attachment of the orthodontic appliance to a tooth (par 52).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alauddin by providing the attachment anchors configured to couple the aligner body to the patient's teeth, wherein the aligner body comprises attachment sites for coupling to the attachment anchors as taught by Li for the purpose of increasing the quality of fit or attachment of the orthodontic appliance to a tooth.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alauddin et al in view of Li et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nordlander et al (US 5,078,153).
Regarding claim 11, Alauddin/Li discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the one or more processor is coupled to the first orthodontic appliance while the first orthodontic appliance is worn in the patient's mouth.
However, Nordlander teaches a dental appliance (splint 10) with a processor (circuit chip 52 of signal transmitter 24) is coupled to the body (see figure 1) while the appliance is worn in the patient's mouth (see figures 1 and 6).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alauddin to have the processor coupled to the orthodontic appliance while the appliance is being worn in the patient’s mouth as taught by Nordlander for the purpose of enabling the recording of information during use.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alauddin et al as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Li et al (US 2011/0136072).
Regarding claim 13, Alauddin discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 12, but fails to disclose providing the attachment anchors configured to couple the aligner body to the patient's teeth, wherein the aligner body comprises attachment sites for coupling to the attachment anchors.
Li further teaches providing an attachment anchors (attachment device 40) configured to couple the aligner body to the patient's teeth (see figure 4A and par 60 discloses the device attaches to a tooth 12), wherein the aligner body (appliance 10, see par 60) comprises attachment sites (receiving well 20) for coupling to the attachment anchors (par 60-61) for the purpose of increasing the quality of fit or attachment of the orthodontic appliance to a tooth (par 52).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alauddin by providing the attachment anchors configured to couple the aligner body to the patient's teeth, wherein the aligner body comprises attachment sites for coupling to the attachment anchors as taught by Li for the purpose of increasing the quality of fit or attachment of the orthodontic appliance to a tooth.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alauddin et al as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nordlander et al.
Regarding claim 20, Alauddin discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 12, and further discloses receiving comprises receiving the sensor data in the processor (par 50 the processor being within the detection instrument 56 which collects output signals), but fails to disclose wherein the processor is coupled to the first orthodontic appliance while the orthodontic appliance is worn in the patient's mouth.
However, Nordlander teaches a dental appliance (splint 10) with a processor (circuit chip 52 of signal transmitter 24) is coupled to the body (see figure 1) while the appliance is worn in the patient's mouth (see figures 1 and 6).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alauddin to have the processor coupled to the orthodontic appliance while the appliance is being worn in the patient’s mouth as taught by Nordlander for the purpose of enabling the recording of information during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Alauddin fails to disclose the orthodontic treatment plan based on sensor data, wherein the modifying comprises automatically modifying a duration of time that a second orthodontic appliance is worn by a patient. However, Alauddin discloses the collected information of the sensor being processed and evaluated to determine if it is within a specific range and then a notification being provided to a treatment professional to establish when moving to the next aligner is appropriate, this would mean modifying the duration of the use of each orthodontic appliance used including a second if determined necessary.
Conclusion
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 SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/S.N.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
12/22/2025