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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 4/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 9 refers to a machine learning model, but does not disclose any improvements to the machine learning models to be applied. As established in the recent federal circuit decision (case 23-2437), patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determination, acquisition, analysis, and communication steps. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements and generically recited acquiring device do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because storing and retrieving information in memory is well-understood, routine, conventional computer function MPEP 2106.05(d).
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 5-6, 8, 11-13, 15-16 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "at least one information element" in line 2 (should be “the at least one…” in order to avoid antecedent issues). Claim 5 also recites “the recipient” in line 4. Claim 8 recites “the time remaining” in line 3 and “the date” in line 5. Claim 12 recites “the same computer interface” in line 3. Claim 13 recites “the time” in the last line. Claim 15 recites “the preceding claim” in line 2. Claim 16 recites “the preceding claim” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is unclear as it recites “the conditions of communication of at least one information element determined in step a”, however the at least one information element is not established until step b.
Claim 6 recites “a treatment objective”, however this has already been established in the preceding claim and therefore it is unclear if this is the same or a different objective.
Claim 11 recites “at least one second dental professional”, however this has already been established in the preceding claim and therefore it is unclear if this is the same or a different professional.
Claim 13 recites “at least one extraoral representation” in line 3, “an information element” in line 4, “a status” in line 5, and “information elements” in line 7, however these have already been established in the preceding claims and therefore it is unclear if this is the same or different limitations.
Claim 16 contains many commas and makes it unclear exactly what is being claimed in the method.
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 1-8, 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitching et al. (US 2016/0074138) in view of Sterental et al. (US 2008/0305452).
Kitching shows a method for adjusting an orthodontic appliance intended for a patient (Abstract), said method comprising the following steps: a) at a parameterization time, determination, by a first dental professional and specifically for said patient, of conditions for communication of updated information relating to the patient's dental configuration (0032 discusses the conditions being before the multiple prescribed tooth arrangements); b) at an update time subsequent to the parameterization time, acquisition, by means of an acquiring device (0032 lists the various means of image acquisition) and by the patient or a friend or relative of the patient (whoever acquires the data of 0032 may be considered a friend, as this is a very broad term), of an extraoral representation of at least one portion of the patient's dental arches (0032 lists various means that would be extraoral), which is referred to as the "updated representation", said updated representation including a set of images and/or of a three-dimensional digital model (“digital model” 0032); c) analysis of said updated representation, so as to determine information on said dental configuration at the update time (0036 discusses comparison), or "updated information", the updated information consisting of including a set of information elements each expressing a status of a respective treatment objective, with regard to the updated representation (0039 discusses recognition and steps to correct deviations toward and to the treatment objectives); and d) communication of the updated information to at least one second dental professional, under the conditions determined in step a) (second dental professional may be the first, as it is not stated to be different from the first; 0036 discusses doctors, patients and technicians perceiving the changes). With respect to claim 2, wherein the conditions determined in step a) set for at least one said treatment objective, at least one communication range, exclusively during which the corresponding information element, determined in step c), is communicable in step d) (analysis as detailed above within the prescribed time range as discussed above); and/or a maximum frequency of communication of the information element (at initial stage, check is scheduled for time between stages/arrangements 0032). With respect to claim 3, wherein the conditions determined in step a) set, for said treatment objective, different said communication ranges depending on the status of said treatment objective (this appears to be directed to an alternative option of the preceding claims and is not required to fulfill the claim language, however communication ranges will vary depending on the treatment objectives of prescribed tooth arrangements). With respect to claim 4, wherein the conditions determined in step a) set, for said treatment objective, a first said communication range for the information element expressing that the treatment objective has been reached (as described above and in 0036 checking for deviations from treatment objectives), and, immediately after said first communication range, a second said communication range for the information element expressing that the treatment objective has not been reached (this appears to be referring to communicating that a deviation has been found and a new treatment objective set, which would be equivalent to 0039 where corrected stages or stages are created to reposition the patient’s teeth and therefore would be communicated in order to be utilized). With respect to claim 5, wherein the conditions of communication of at least one information element determined in step a) are dependent on the treatment objective in question (based on prescribed tooth arrangement 0032 as detailed above) and/or on the status of the treatment objective expressed by said information element (based on if there is a deviation 0036) and/or on the recipient of the information element (0036 discusses that a technician will receive the information prior to a doctor or patient). With respect to claim 6, wherein the status of a treatment objective is selected from a group of potential statuses containing less than 10 potential statuses (status of whether there are deviations or not). With respect to claim 7, wherein the number of treatment objectives is less than 30 (this may be referring to the number of treatment stages, which could be any number, including less than 30, to reach the final prescribed tooth arrangement; 0031 for instance and as described in US 5,975,893 incorporated by reference 0003). With respect to claim 8, wherein, for at least one treatment objective, the updated information contains an evaluation of the time remaining, from the update time, to reach the treatment objective in compliance with a treatment plan established before the update time (time remaining will be based on original prescribed treatment), and/or contains an indication of the date since which the treatment objective has been monitored (date would be indicated by previous teeth models and imaging). With respect to claim 11, wherein at least one second dental professional is different from the first dental professional (see above where the technician will see the deviation and communicate to the doctor to administer). With respect to claim 12, wherein the parameterization in step a) and the communication in step d) are carried out by means of the same computer interface (0041 discusses the system being implemented in software and establishment of computing system and therefore corresponding computer interface; Fig. 1). With respect to claim 13, wherein the interface simultaneously presents: an identifier of the patient (filename indicated at the top of Fig. 8 which will indicate the patient); and a timeline representing successive times that are individually selectable by an operator (0079 and 0088 discuss selection); and for each selectable time selected, at least one extraoral representation of the patient's dental arches at the selected time, or "main representation", and/or an information element expressing a status, at the selected time, of at least one treatment objective and/or at least one observation relating to the patient's dental configuration at the selected time (see Fig. 8, 11, 15 for instance that provide this information); and a treatment-objective-monitoring zone providing information elements expressing statuses of said treatment objectives at the time when the interface is displayed (Fig. 8, 11, 15 show statuses in the form of deviations for instance). With respect to claim 14, comprising, after step d), the following step: e) depending on the updated information communicated in step d), either adjusting said orthodontic appliance or not (see Fig. 7; 0085-0086). With respect to claim 15, wherein series of steps b) to d), or, when, depending on the updated information communicated in step d), either adjusting said orthodontic appliance or not the preceding claim applies, series of steps b) to e), are repeated at various update times during orthodontic treatment of a patient (as detailed above, these steps are carried out multiple times and therefore various update times). With respect to claim 16 (see 112 above), wherein the conditions determined in step a) set for at least one said treatment objective, for each step c) of a series of steps b) to d), or, when the preceding claim applies, of a series of steps b) to e), at least one communication range, exclusively during which the corresponding information element, determined in said step c), is communicable in step d) of said series; and/or a maximum communication frequency of the information element, said frequency being independent of the times at which the acquisition steps b) are carried out (while it is unclear exactly what is being claimed, Kitching shows at least one communication range where information is conveyed to the doctor to continue treatment with or without new stages). With respect to claim 17, wherein said treatment objective is selected from the following group: membership of the occlusion to a predefined occlusion class, each occlusion class defining an inter-arch relationship in the sagittal plane, - gaps between the teeth, of the patient, i.e. diastemata, less than predefined gaps, - gap resulting from the extraction of a tooth of the patient less than a predefined gap, - overjet less than a predefined overjet, - overbite less than a predefined overbite, - offset of the inter-incisal midline of the maxillary and mandibular arches less than a predefined offset, - offset of the median lines of the lower and upper arches of the patient less than a predefined offset, - lateral offset of the upper arch with respect to the lower arch less than a predefined offset, - level of activity of the orthodontic appliance less than a predefined level, - rate of change of the movements of the teeth less than a predefined level, - amplitude of a movement of one or more teeth of the maxillary and/or mandibular arch of the patient, from where they were on prior inspection, less than a predefined amplitude, - correction of the rotation of one or more teeth achieved, - alignment of the teeth of an arch in the occlusal plane achieved, - levelling of the teeth of an arch achieved, - level of abrasion of one or more teeth less than a predefined level, - the number of deciduous teeth of the patient that have fallen out less than a predefined number, - level of lateral open bite less than a predefined level, - level of posterior open bite less than a predefined level, - level of anterior open bite less than a predefined level, - absence of anterior crossbite, Response to Office Action Dated February 24, 2026 - absence of posterior crossbite, - crowding less than predefined crowding, - absence of gingivitis, - absence of peri-implantitis, - amount of tartar less than a predefined amount, - a measure of hygiene level greater than a predefined measure of hygiene level, - recession value within a predefined range, - level of cleanliness of the orthodontic appliance greater than a predefined level, - gap closure or diastema correction less than a predefined level, - absence of black triangles, - absence of infection, in particular absence of aphthae, or irregularities in the mucosa, - shade/whiteness value of the teeth within a predefined range (a great deal of these are met by establishing the target arrangement; for instance 0056 discussing occlusion and space between/contact of teeth, 0057 discusses rotation of teeth, and 0058 discusses magnitude of tooth movements).
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.
Claim 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitching in view of Salah et al. (US 2022/0222910).
Kitching discloses the device as previously described above and the updated representation including a set of images (0032-0033), referred to as "updated images", but fails to show with respect to claim 9, wherein, in step c), the updated representation is submitted to at least one convolutional neural network; and with respect to claim 10, wherein the acquiring device is a mobile telephone.
Salah similarly teaches orthodontic monitoring wherein the updated images/representation are acquired by a mobile telephone (0037; “mobile phone”) and submitted to a convolutional neural network (0047-0048, 0110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kitching’s method by including feeding the updated images into a neural network as taught by Salah in order to utilize known alternative means for analyzing orthodontic data (0047-0050).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights