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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “115” has been used to designate both the Bus and Content Server in Figure 1.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
113 in Figure 1.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
400 in Figure 4
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 13-14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claim 4 line 3 to “3-dimensional digital scan”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 13 line 6 to “a state evaluator”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 14 lines 14 and 17 to remove the bolding on the text “has the”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 17 line 3 to “3-dimensional digital scan”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, 14-19, and 22 are unclear as it is unclear if any steps of the claimed method are required. The claims, and notably the independent claims 1, 14, and 22, include the limitation “having”, for example in the limitation “obtaining or having obtained”, “performing or having performed”, and “verifying or having verified”. These limitations do not appear to positively claim the step being performed, as “having” done something indicates that it was done in the past, and possibly by another person, in a separate process or method which is not part of the claimed method, and therefore does not require the claimed method to include that step. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret these steps as being not performed as part of the claimed method. Examiner suggests amending to clarify.
Claims 1-22 are unclear as it is unclear if any of the steps are actually required for the claimed method. For example, for claim 1 lines 9-12 “if the first licensed dental professional determines that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, verifying or having verified, by a second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional’s determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality”, if the first licensed dental professional determines that the patient does not have the correctable tooth position abnormality, the method does not require any step to occur. Further, if the second licensed dental professional does not verify the first licensed dental professional’s determination or does not agree with the first licensed dental professional’s determination, the method does not require any step to occur. Further, as discussed in the above rejection of Claims 1-6, 10-12, 14-19, and 22, the limitations including “having” do not require the claimed method to include that step. Examiner suggests amending claims 1-22 to clarify. Furthermore, it is unclear what “having” means, as it is unclear if this is a step taken in the past and/or if it is done by another party (for example, a person does not perform the step themselves but get it done by “having” someone else do it).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12, which is dependent on claim 11, appears to be identical to claim 11, with the only difference between the two claims being that claim 11 uses “comprising” in line 2 while claim 12 uses “comprises”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps of treating a patient with removable teeth aligners by determining whether a patient has a correctable tooth position abnormality but do not integrate the method into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1-22:
Claims 1-13 are directed to a method of treating a patient with removable teeth aligners, claims 14-21 are directed to a method of treating a patient with removable teeth aligners, and claim 22 is directed to a method of diagnosing, providing aligners for, and treating tooth position malocclusions, which are processes, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Claims 1-22 recites the limitations of “determining”, “obtaining or having obtained”, “performing or having performed”, “verifying or having verified”, “providing”, “scanning”, “designing”, “receiving approval”, “using the integrated treatment platform”, “creating…a design”, “sending”, and “approving”.
These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as these limitations could be done mentally, for example: mentally determining whether a patient has a correctable tooth position abnormality, obtaining a digital 3-dimensional mold by writing down the coordinates and dimensions using pen and paper, mentally performing an analysis, mentally verifying the abnormalities of a patient’s teeth, providing aligners by writing directions on how to purchase them with pen and paper, scanning by writing down dimensions and coordinates with a pen and paper, designing the aligners using pen and paper, mentally receiving approval, using a treatment platform by pen and paper, creating an aligner design using pen and paper, sending information using pen and paper, and mentally approving a design. These limitations describe a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the limitation “digital” or generically recited computer parts. Further, these steps also fall into the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas, as a number of claimed steps are conducted on a “digital model”, i.e. a series of known values and relationships defined as mathematical relationships upon which a series of mathematical calculations are performed. Further, steps including the limitation “having” such as “obtaining or having obtained” are interpreted as not being part of the claimed method, as the limitation “having” can be interpreted as the step having been performed in the past, or having been performed by another person, in a separate process or method which is not part of the claimed method, and therefore not adding significantly more. Thus, nothing in claims 1-22 precludes the idea from practically being performed in the human mind and/or as mathematical concepts. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Claims 1-22 do not recite elements in addition to abstract concepts. Thus, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and is only directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. No additional claimed elements recite integration into a practical application)
Claims 1-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Thus, claims 1-22 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14-16, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trosien et al (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0025907 A1, hereinafter “Trosien”) in view of Kim (KR 20020081934 A and translated PDF) and Invisalign (https://web.archive.org/web/20210311112247/https://www.invisalign.com/frequently-asked-questions, see attached PDF) in view of South Springs (https://web.archive.org/web/ 20210121144104/https://southspringsdentalgroup.com/how-long-do-i-need-to-wear-retainers/, see attached PDF).
The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e., “if”) requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. If the claimed invention may be practiced without the condition happening, then the contingent step is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (see MPEP 2111.04 Section II).
In regard to claim 1, Trosien discloses a method (Figs. 1-10) for treating a patient with removable teeth aligners (Fig. 4), wherein the patient is suffering from tooth position abnormalities (Abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
determining whether the patient has a correctable tooth position abnormality by:
obtaining or having obtained a digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient (para. 0038-0039 and 0041); and
performing or having performed an analysis of the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient by a first licensed dental professional to determine whether the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality (paras. 0041-0043);
if the patient correctable tooth position abnormality is determined to be a minor correctable tooth position abnormality, providing a plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners based on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient, which are each to be administered to the teeth of the patient (para. 0066-0067, appliances customized to patient’s tooth abnormalities),
if the patient correctable tooth position abnormality is determined to be a major correctable tooth position abnormality, then providing a plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners based on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient, which are each to be administered to the teeth of the patient (para. 0066-0067, appliances customized to patient’s tooth abnormalities),
Trosien does not disclose if the first licensed dental professional determines the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, verifying or having verified, by a second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality; and if the second licensed dental professional verifies the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, that the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners and the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners are each administered for one to two weeks and for at least 20 hours/day, and that if it is determined that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, then upon completion of the administering of either the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners or the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners, providing a final removable teeth aligner based at least partially on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient, which is to be administered to the teeth of the patient for at least 12 hours/day and lifetime wear.
Kim teaches a similar method (Abstract) comprising the steps of, if a first licensed dental professional determines the patient has a correctable tooth position abnormality (p. 5 lines 59-62), verifying or having verified, by a second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality (p. 6 lines 9-12); and if the second licensed dental professional verifies the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, then proceeding with treatment (p. 6 lines 18-19).
Invisalign teaches that the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners and the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners (aligners are customized to patient, p. 1 section “How will Invisalign treatment straighten my teeth?”) are each administered for one to two weeks and for at least 20 hours/day (p. 1 section “What is the treatment process?”), and that if it is determined that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, then upon completion of the administering of either the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners or the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners, providing a final removable teeth aligner based at least partially on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient (p. 2 sections “Will I need to wear a retainer after treatment to prevent my teeth from moving again?” and “What type of retainer should I use?”).
South Springs teaches a method of providing a final removable teeth aligner upon completion of a plurality of removable teeth aligners (p. 1 section “Why Do I Need a Retainer” lines 1-4) which is to be administered to the teeth of the patient for at least 12 hours/day and lifetime wear (p. 1 section “The Stages of Wearing a Removable Retainer” lines 1-6).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for treating the teeth of patients.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien by adding the step of if a first licensed dental professional determines the patient has a correctable tooth position abnormality, verifying, by a second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality; and if the second licensed dental professional verifies the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, then proceeding with treatment as taught by Kim in order to allow elimination of diagnosis errors of the dentist (Kim p. 3 lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien in view of Kim by adding the steps that the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners and the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners are each administered for one to two weeks and for at least 20 hours/day, and that if it is determined that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, then upon completion of the administering of either the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners or the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners, providing a final removable teeth aligner based at least partially on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient as taught by Invisalign in order to allow gradually shifting the teeth in place and preventing the teeth from shifting back to their original position (Invisalign p. 1 section “What is Invisalign treatment?” and p. 2 “Will I need to wear a retainer after treatment to prevent my teeth from moving again?”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign by specifying the final removable teeth aligner is to be administered to the teeth of the patient for at least 12 hours/day and lifetime wear as taught by South Springs in order to allow for lifetime maintenance of a straight smile (South Springs p. 1 section “Why Do I Need a Retainer” line 4).
In regard to claim 2, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 1. Trosien further discloses wherein the obtaining or having obtained the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: obtaining or having obtained a physical negative impression of the mouth and teeth of the patient using a dental impression material (para. 0038, impressions); and digitally scanning the physical negative impression of the mouth and teeth of the patient to create an indirect, digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient (paras. 0038-0039 and 0041).
In regard to claim 3, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 2. Trosien further discloses wherein the obtaining or having obtained the physical negative impression of the mouth and teeth of the patient using the dental impression material comprises: obtaining the physical negative impression of the mouth and teeth of the patient by a dentist (para. 0038, treating professional).
In regard to claim 5, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein the performing or having performed the analysis of the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient by the first licensed dental professional to determine whether the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality further comprises: performing or having performed the analysis of the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient by the first licensed dental professional to determine whether the patient has a minor correctable tooth position abnormality or a major correctable tooth position abnormality (paras. 0041-0043, patient tooth abnormality is determined).
In regard to claim 6, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 5. Trosien does not disclose wherein the verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality comprises: verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination whether the patient has a minor correctable tooth position abnormality or a major correctable tooth position abnormality.
Kim teaches wherein the verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality comprises: verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination whether the patient has a minor correctable tooth position abnormality or a major correctable tooth position abnormality (p. 5 lines 59-62 and p. 6 lines 9-12 and 18-19, treatment is customized to patient’s tooth abnormalities).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for treating the teeth of patients. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs by specifying that the step of verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality comprises: verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination whether the patient has a minor correctable tooth position abnormality or a major correctable tooth position abnormality as taught by Kim in order to allow elimination of diagnosis errors of the dentist (Kim p. 3 lines 9-10).
In regard to claim 7, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 1. Trosien further discloses wherein the providing the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners based on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: providing the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners to incrementally correct the minor correctable tooth position abnormality with the patient wearing each of the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners in a predetermined order (para. 0066-0067, appliances customized to patient’s tooth abnormalities).
In regard to claim 8, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 1. Trosien further discloses wherein the providing the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners based on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: providing the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners in to incrementally correct the major correctable tooth position abnormality with the patient wearing each of the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners a predetermined order (para. 0066-0067, appliances customized to patient’s tooth abnormalities).
In regard to claim 9, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 1. Trosien does not disclose wherein the providing the final removable teeth aligner based at least partially on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: providing a final retainer configured to maintain a final tooth position achieved by the patient wearing either the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners or the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners.
Invisalign teaches that wherein the providing the final removable teeth aligner based at least partially on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient (p. 2 sections “Will I need to wear a retainer after treatment to prevent my teeth from moving again?” and “What type of retainer should I use?”) comprises: providing a final retainer capable of maintaining a final tooth position achieved by the patient wearing either the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners or the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners (p. 2 sections “Will I need to wear a retainer after treatment to prevent my teeth from moving again?” and “What type of retainer should I use?”).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for treating the teeth of patients. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs by specifying that the step of providing the final removable teeth aligner based at least partially on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: providing a final retainer configured to maintain a final tooth position achieved by the patient wearing either the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners or the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners as taught by Invisalign in order to allow gradually shifting the teeth in place and preventing the teeth from shifting back to their original position (Invisalign p. 1 section “What is Invisalign treatment?” and p. 2 “Will I need to wear a retainer after treatment to prevent my teeth from moving again?”).
In regard to claim 10, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 1. Trosien further discloses the method further comprising: designing, by the first licensed dental professional, a plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners and a prescribed treatment plan for the patient (paras. 0041-0043). Trosien does not disclose the step of if the first licensed dental professional determines the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, and before the verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional.
Kim teaches a method including the step of the first licensed dental professional determines the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, and before the verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional (p. 5 lines 59-62 and p. 6 lines 9-12 and 18-19).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for treating the teeth of patients. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs by specifying that the step of the step of if the first licensed dental professional determines the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, and before the verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional as taught by Kim in order to allow elimination of diagnosis errors of the dentist (Kim p. 3 lines 9-10).
In regard to claim 14, Trosien discloses a method (Figs. 1-10) for treating a patient with removable teeth aligners (Fig. 4), wherein the patient is diagnosed as suffering from tooth position abnormalities (Abstract), the method comprising:
determining whether the patient has a correctable tooth position abnormality by:
obtaining or having obtained a digital 3-dimensional mold or an image of the mouth and teeth of the patient (para. 0038-0039 and 0041); and
performing or having performed an analysis of the digital 3-dimensional mold or the image of the mouth and teeth of the patient by a first licensed dental professional to determine whether the patient qualifies with a healthy dentition and has the correctable tooth position abnormality (paras. 0041-0043);
if the patient correctable tooth position abnormality is determined to be a minor abnormality, providing a first prescribed plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners based on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient, which are each to be administered to the teeth of the patient (para. 0066-0067, appliances customized to patient’s tooth abnormalities); or,
if the patient correctable tooth position abnormality is determined to be a major correctable tooth position abnormality, providing a second prescribed plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners based on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient, which are each to be administered to the teeth of the patient (para. 0066-0067, appliances customized to patient’s tooth abnormalities).
Trosien does not disclose if the first licensed dental professional determines the patient has the healthy dentition and has the correctable tooth position abnormality, verifying or having verified, by a second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the healthy dentition and has the correctable tooth position abnormality; if the second licensed dental professional verifies the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the healthy dentition and has the correctable tooth position abnormality, then: that the first or second prescribed plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners are each administered for one to two weeks and for at least 20 hours/day, and that if it is determined that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, then upon completion of the administering of each of either the first prescribed plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners or the second prescribed plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners, providing a final removable teeth aligner based on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient, which is to be administered to the teeth of the patient for at least 12 hours/day and lifetime wear.
Kim teaches a similar method (Abstract) for braces and wire therapy comprising the steps of, if a first licensed dental professional determines the patient has the healthy dentition and has the correctable tooth position abnormality (p. 5 lines 59-62), verifying or having verified, by a second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the healthy dentition and has the correctable tooth position abnormality (p. 6 lines 9-12); and if the second licensed dental professional verifies the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the healthy dentition and has the correctable tooth position abnormality, then proceeding with treatment (p. 6 lines 18-19).
Invisalign teaches that the first or second prescribed plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners (aligners are customized to patient, p. 1 section “How will Invisalign treatment straighten my teeth?”) are each administered for one to two weeks and for at least 20 hours/day (p. 1 section “What is the treatment process?”), and that if it is determined that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, then upon completion of the administering of each of either the first or second prescribed plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners, providing a final removable teeth aligner based at least partially on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient (p. 2 sections “Will I need to wear a retainer after treatment to prevent my teeth from moving again?” and “What type of retainer should I use?”).
South Springs teaches a method of providing a final removable teeth aligner upon completion of a prescribed plurality of removable teeth aligners (p. 1 section “Why Do I Need a Retainer” lines 1-4) which is to be administered to the teeth of the patient for at least 12 hours/day and lifetime wear (p. 1 section “The Stages of Wearing a Removable Retainer” lines 1-6).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for treating the teeth of patients.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien by specifying the method is for braces and wire therapy and adding the step of if a first licensed dental professional determines the patient has the healthy dentition and has the correctable tooth position abnormality, verifying or having verified, by a second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the healthy dentition and has the correctable tooth position abnormality; and if the second licensed dental professional verifies the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the healthy dentition and has the correctable tooth position abnormality, then proceeding with treatment as taught by Kim in order to allow elimination of diagnosis errors of the dentist (Kim p. 3 lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien in view of Kim by adding the steps that the first or second prescribed plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners are each administered for one to two weeks and for at least 20 hours/day, and that if it is determined that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality, then upon completion of the administering of each of either the first or second prescribed plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners, providing a final removable teeth aligner based at least partially on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient as taught by Invisalign in order to allow gradually shifting the teeth in place and preventing the teeth from shifting back to their original position (Invisalign p. 1 section “What is Invisalign treatment?” and p. 2 “Will I need to wear a retainer after treatment to prevent my teeth from moving again?”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign by specifying the final removable teeth aligner is to be administered to the teeth of the patient for at least 12 hours/day and lifetime wear as taught by South Springs in order to allow for lifetime maintenance of a straight smile (South Springs p. 1 section “Why Do I Need a Retainer” line 4).
In regard to claim 15, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 14. Trosien further discloses wherein the obtaining or having obtained the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: obtaining or having obtained a physical negative impression of the mouth and teeth of the patient using a dental impression material (para. 0038, impressions); and digitally scanning the physical negative impression of the mouth and teeth of the patient to create an indirect, digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient (paras. 0038-0039 and 0041).
In regard to claim 16, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 15. Trosien further discloses wherein the obtaining or having obtained the physical negative impression of the mouth and teeth of the patient using the dental impression material comprises: obtaining the physical negative impression of the mouth and teeth of the patient by a dentist (para. 0038, treating professional).
In regard to claim 18, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 14. Trosien further discloses wherein the performing or having performed the analysis of the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient by the first licensed dental professional to determine whether the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality further comprises: performing or having performed the analysis of the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient by the first licensed dental professional to determine whether the patient has a minor correctable tooth position abnormality or a major correctable tooth position abnormality (paras. 0041-0043, patient tooth abnormality is determined).
In regard to claim 19, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 18. Trosien does not disclose wherein the verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality comprises: verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination whether the patient has the minor correctable tooth position abnormality, the major correctable tooth position abnormality, the greater than major correctable tooth position abnormality, or the uncorrectable tooth position abnormality.
Kim teaches wherein the verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality comprises: verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination whether the patient has a minor correctable tooth position abnormality or a major correctable tooth position abnormality (p. 5 lines 59-62 and p. 6 lines 9-12 and 18-19, treatment is customized to patient’s tooth abnormalities).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for treating the teeth of patients. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs by specifying that the step of verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination that the patient has the correctable tooth position abnormality comprises: verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the first licensed dental professional's determination whether the patient has a minor correctable tooth position abnormality or a major correctable tooth position abnormality as taught by Kim in order to allow elimination of diagnosis errors of the dentist (Kim p. 3 lines 9-10).
In regard to claim 20, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 14. Trosien further discloses wherein the providing the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners based on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: providing the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners to incrementally correct the patient minor correctable tooth position abnormality with the patient wearing of each of the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners in a predetermined order (para. 0066-0067, appliances customized to patient’s tooth abnormalities).
In regard to claim 21, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 20. Trosien does not disclose wherein the providing the final removable teeth aligner based at least partially on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: providing a final retainer configured to maintain a final tooth position achieved by the patient wearing the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners in the predetermined order.
Invisalign teaches that wherein the providing the final removable teeth aligner based at least partially on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient (p. 2 sections “Will I need to wear a retainer after treatment to prevent my teeth from moving again?” and “What type of retainer should I use?”) comprises: providing a final retainer capable of maintaining a final tooth position achieved by the patient wearing either the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners or the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners (p. 2 sections “Will I need to wear a retainer after treatment to prevent my teeth from moving again?” and “What type of retainer should I use?”).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for treating the teeth of patients. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs by specifying that the step of providing the final removable teeth aligner based at least partially on the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: providing a final retainer configured to maintain a final tooth position achieved by the patient wearing either the plurality of minor differently configured, removable teeth aligners or the plurality of major differently configured, removable teeth aligners as taught by Invisalign in order to allow gradually shifting the teeth in place and preventing the teeth from shifting back to their original position (Invisalign p. 1 section “What is Invisalign treatment?” and p. 2 “Will I need to wear a retainer after treatment to prevent my teeth from moving again?”).
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs and German (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0044627 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the method of claim 1. Trosien does not disclose wherein the obtaining or having obtained the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: obtaining or having obtained an intraoral 3-dimensional digital scan of the mouth and teeth of the patient, which is then used to create a direct, digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient.
German teaches wherein obtaining or having obtained the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: obtaining or having obtained an intraoral 3-dimensional digital scan of the mouth and teeth of the patient (102 in Fig. 1A, para. 0019), which is then used to create a direct, digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient (104 in Fig. 1A, para. 0019).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for treating the teeth of patients. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs by specifying the step of obtaining or having obtained the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises obtaining or having obtained an intraoral 3-dimensional digital scan of the mouth and teeth of the patient, which is then used to create a direct, digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient as taught by German in order to allow alleviation of patient discomfort and inconvenience by eliminating the need to take a dental impression (German para. 0005).
In regard to claim 17, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the method of claim 14. Trosien does not disclose wherein the obtaining or having obtained the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: obtaining or having obtained an intraoral 3-dimensional digital scan of the mouth and teeth of the patient, which is then used to create a direct, digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient.
German teaches wherein obtaining or having obtained the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises: obtaining or having obtained an intraoral 3-dimensional digital scan of the mouth and teeth of the patient (102 in Fig. 1A, para. 0019), which is then used to create a direct, digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient (104 in Fig. 1A, para. 0019).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for treating the teeth of patients. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs by specifying the step of obtaining or having obtained the digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient comprises obtaining or having obtained an intraoral 3-dimensional digital scan of the mouth and teeth of the patient, which is then used to create a direct, digital 3-dimensional mold of the mouth and teeth of the patient as taught by German in order to allow alleviation of patient discomfort and inconvenience by eliminating the need to take a dental impression (German para. 0005).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs and Katzman et al (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0298874 A1, hereinafter “Katzman”).
In regard to claims 11 and 12, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs discloses the invention of claim 1. Trosien does not disclose wherein the verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the method further comprising: verifying, by the second licensed dental professional, the designed plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners and the prescribed treatment plan for the patient.
Katzman teaches a method wherein disclose the verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the method further comprising: verifying, by the second licensed dental professional, the designed plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners and the prescribed treatment plan for the patient (para. 0082, 0085, and 0089).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for treating the teeth of patients. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs by specifying the step the verifying or having verified, by the second licensed dental professional, the method further comprising: verifying, by the second licensed dental professional, the designed plurality of differently configured, removable teeth aligners and the prescribed treatment plan for the patient as taught by Katzman in order to allow for orthodontic treatment without having to physically see the second licensed dental professional (Katzman para. 0004).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs and Katzman and Giegerich (WO 2020232223 A1).
In regard to claim 13, Trosien in view of Kim and Invisalign in view of South Springs and Katzman discloses the method of claim 11. Trosien further discloses wherein the providing t