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 .
The Applicant’s Remarks filed 07 July 2026 have been received and considered.
The IDS filed 09 July 2026 has been received and considered.
The 112(b) rejections in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08 April 2026 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 9, and 17 – 19 have been amended.
Claims 4 and 5 have been allowed.
Claims 1 – 3 and 6 – 20, all of the remaining claims pending in this application, have been rejected.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
In view of the Applicant’s remarks filed 07 July 2026, regarding amendments to the claims, the previously applied prior art rejections are withdrawn. Applicant's remarks are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below, in light of the amendment(s). However, Examiner notes that claims 1 and 6 invoke Schulhauser, therefore, only the limitations pertaining to the “first classifier” need to be satisfied.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the following language “or applying a second . It should be written as “applying the normalized tooth shape features to a second classifier…”.
Claim 6 recites similar claim language as claim 1 and is objected to for the same reasons.
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.
Claim 1 – 3 and 6 – 20 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the following claim language “applying the normalized tooth shape features to a first classifier configured to determine whether the target tooth is a fully erupted permanent tooth”. This is being interpreted as the first classifier is configured to “only” determine if a target tooth is a fully erupted permanent tooth. It is unclear how the classifier is to classify the tooth if it is determined to not be a “fully erupted permanent tooth”. Claim 1 then continues to say “and either: outputting the eruption status and the primary or permanent tooth type of the target tooth when the first classifier determines that the target tooth is a fully erupted permanent tooth”. It is unclear as to what “eruption status” the claim language is referring to as the first classifier can only determine if a tooth is a fully erupted permanent tooth, as presently claimed. As previously discussed, the way the claim is currently written, the classifier can only determine one status (fully erupted) and one tooth type (permanent). Therefore, it is also unclear how the classifier determines that the tooth is a “primary” tooth. Furthermore, it is also unclear as to why the output would need “the eruption status and the primary or permanent tooth type of the target tooth when the first classifier determines that the target tooth is a fully erupted permanent tooth” when it literally just determined the status being “fully erupted” and the tooth type being “permanent”, as specifically recited in the claim language.
Examiner recommends removing the limitation “outputting the eruption status and the primary or permanent tooth type of the target tooth when the first classifier determines that the target tooth is a fully erupted permanent tooth” in its entirety.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the eruption status" in “outputting the eruption status and the primary or permanent tooth type of the target tooth when the first classifier determines that the target tooth is a fully erupted permanent tooth”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the primary" in “outputting the eruption status and the primary or permanent tooth type of the target tooth when the first classifier determines that the target tooth is a fully erupted permanent tooth”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 – 3 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 6, an independent non-transitory claim, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 1.
Claims 7 – 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6 – 10, and 12 - 16 are rejected (As Best Understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2017/0169562 A1 to Somasundaram et al. (hereinafter Somasundaram) in view of US Publication No. 2017/0273760 A1 to Morton et al. (hereinafter Morton).
Examiner is interpreting the functions of the classifiers as follows:
First Classifier: determines whether the target tooth is a fully erupted permanent tooth (i.e yes or no).
Second Classifier: determining (once the first classifier has determined that the target tooth is not a fully erupted permanent tooth) whether the target tooth is a partially erupted or unerupted permanent tooth or a primary tooth that is partially erupted or unerupted, and then outputting the eruption status and the primary or permanent tooth type of the target tooth.
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, an independent method claim, Somasundaram teaches a method of automatically determining an eruption status and a primary or permanent tooth type of a target tooth, the method comprising:accessing, in a computing device, a three-dimensional (3D) model of [[the]] a patient’s teeth including the target tooth (Figure 4; "Method 22 includes receiving a segmented digital 3D model of a patient's teeth (step 24) and identifying the tooth type by classification of the aggregated features of the tooth (step 26), which can also include receiving contextual information (step 27) for use in identifying the type of tooth.", Paragraph [0028]);
determining, in the computing device, tooth shape features of the target tooth from the 3D model of the patient’s teeth (Figure 4; "Method 22 includes receiving a segmented digital 3D model of a patient's teeth (step 24) and identifying the tooth type by classification of the aggregated features of the tooth (step 26), which can also include receiving contextual information (step 27) for use in identifying the type of tooth.", Paragraph [0028]);
determining, in the computing device, tooth shape features of one or more reference teeth from the 3D model of the patient’s teeth (Rejected as applied directly above), wherein the contextual information would be reference teeth information;
normalizing, in the computing device, at least some of the tooth shape features of the target tooth using the tooth shape features of the one or more reference teeth (Figures 12 and 13; "The tooth widths of the teeth in the sample arch (as given by the dental status) can be concatenated and their sum normalized by the arch form length. FIG. 13 shows an unwrapped arch form 45 a linearized version of the arch curve with the interstices determined by the average tooth widths. The length of this arch line has been normalized to one. FIG. 13 also shows a similar line 47 derived from the interstices of the sample arch, as illustrated in FIG. 10.", Paragraph [0055]).
Although Somasundaram teaches the use of a machine learning algorithm/module (Classifier) to detect and determine if the tooth is a permanent or primary tooth Paragraph [0025], Somasundaram does not explicitly teach determine whether the target tooth is a fully erupted permanent tooth
Examiner note: Somasundaram teaches the use of a machine learning model to determine the type of tooth being primary or permanent (which implies the tooth needing to be fully erupted), but does not explicitly disclose that model being able to determine eruption status (i.e. fully erupted in this case).
However Morton teaches determine whether the target tooth is a fully erupted permanent tooth (“A tooth may be categorized according to one or more of the following tooth types: an incisor, a canine, a premolar, a molar, an anterior tooth, a posterior tooth, a central tooth, a lateral tooth, a single-rooted tooth, a multi-rooted tooth, a primary tooth, a permanent tooth, a partially erupted tooth, a fully erupted tooth, an ectopic tooth, a small-sized tooth, an average-sized tooth, a large-sized tooth, a maxillary tooth, or a mandibular tooth. Tooth size may be quantified according to various metrics, including but not limited to tooth diameter, root surface area, root volume, root length, crown surface area, and/or crown volume.”, Paragraph [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Somasundaram to incorporate including determining an eruption status of the type of tooth be analyzed, as disclosed by Morton. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow the machine learning algorithm to not only be able to determine a type of tooth (permanent or primary), but would also allow the algorithm to determine the eruption status of the tooth (i.e. fully erupted).
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, Somasundaram, in view of Morton, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Somasundaram does not teach wherein the eruption status comprises whether the target tooth has fully erupted, partially erupted, or not erupted.
However, Morton further teaches wherein the eruption status comprises whether the target tooth has fully erupted, partially erupted, or not erupted (Rejected as applied to claim 1, specifically Paragraph [0130]).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, dependent on claim 1, Somasundaram, in view of Morton, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1.
Somasundaram does not explicitly teach further comprising determining [[e]] as part of the tooth shape features one or more of: mesial-distal width, buccal-lingual width, crown height, crown center, and number of cusps.
However, Morton further teaches further comprising determining [[e]] as part of the tooth shape features one or more of: mesial-distal width, buccal-lingual width, crown height, crown center, and number of cusps (“Tooth size may be quantified according to various metrics, including but not limited to tooth diameter, root surface area, root volume, root length, crown surface area, and/or crown volume.”, Paragraph [0130]), wherein the crown height must be known to determine the crown volume (i.e. L x W x H).
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, dependent on claim 6, Somasundaram, in view of Morton, teaches the claim as claimed in claim 6.
Somasundaram further teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to receive the 3D model from a three-dimensional scanner (" FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system 10 for predicting or identifying tooth types using a digital 3D model based upon intra-oral 3D scans. System 10 includes a processor 20 receiving digital 3D models of teeth (12) from intra-oral 3D scans or scans of impressions of teeth.", Paragraph [0026]).
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, dependent on claim 6, Somasundaram, in view of Morton, teaches the claim as claimed in claim 6.
Somasundaram, in view of Morton, further teaches wherein the instructions are configured to include the patient information with the normalized tooth shape features applied to at least one of the first and second classifiers ("Given an input 3D scan of a patient's dental arch, the point classification of step 26 as described above rises 3D mesh features along with learned models of 3D tooth shapes to predict the tooth types of the individual teeth. In particular, each segmented tooth is passed to a tooth type classifier, which computes the covariance descriptor of 3D mesh features over the entire tooth shape, and classifies this feature to one of thirty-two tooth types based on the learned classification model. In the aforementioned approach, the individual teeth are being classified independently of each other. There is not necessarily any influence on a tooth's structure, location, and predicted tooth type on the predicted tooth types for the neighboring teeth, or any other teeth in that particular patient's mouth.", Paragraph [0042]).
Although Somasundaram teaches the inclusion of patient information, Somasundaram does not explicitly teach wherein the patient information includes one or more of: patient age, eruption sequence, measured space available for eruption, and patient gender.
However, Morton further teaches wherein the patient information includes one or more of: patient age, eruption sequence, measured space available for eruption, and patient gender (“…each tooth based at least in part on one or more patient-specific characteristics, including but not limited to: age, metabolic rate, bone density, skeletal maturity, periodontal condition, intraoral organism population, saliva composition, saliva characteristics, biomarker concentrations, pregnancy status, obesity status, body mass index (BMI), height, weight, drug use status, medical history, family medical history, genetic factors, gender, ethnicity, or a combination thereof.”, Paragraph [0127])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of Somasundaram, in view of Morton, to incorporate including specific patient details, as disclosed by Morton. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to evaluate the present dental issues, allowing for a specific treatment tailored on a criterion based on a patient-by-patient case.
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, dependent on claim 6, Somasundaram, in view of Morton, teaches the claim as claimed in claim 6.
Somasundaram further teaches wherein the instructions are configured to determine the tooth shape features of the one or more reference teeth from one reference tooth (Paragraphs [0024 – 0032] and [0042 - 0043]).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, dependent on claim 12, Somasundaram, in view of Morton, teaches the claim as claimed in claim 12.
Somasundaram further teaches wherein the one reference tooth comprises a molar (Paragraphs [0024 – 0032] and [0042 - 0043]).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, dependent on claim 6, Somasundaram, in view of Morton, teaches the claim as claimed in claim 6.
Somasundaram further teaches wherein the instructions are configured to determine the tooth shape features of the one or more reference teeth from two reference teeth (Rejected as applied to claim 12), where the characteristics of neighboring teeth can be used to determine the respective information of other teeth.
Claim 6, an independent non-transitory computing device readable medium claim, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 1.
Claim 7, dependent on claim 6, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 2, wherein the tooth can be categorized according to one or more of the listed tooth types.
Claim 10, dependent on claim 6, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 3.
Claim 16, dependent on claim 6, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claims 1 and 3.
Claims 15 is rejected (As Best Understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2017/0169562 A1 to Somasundaram et al. (hereinafter Somasundaram) in view of US Publication No. 2017/0273760 A1 to Morton et al. (hereinafter Morton) in further view of US Publication No. 2015/0342545 to Bergersen.
Claim 15
Regarding Claim 15, dependent on claim 6, Somasundaram, in view of Morton, teaches the claim as claimed in claim 6.
Neither Somasundaram, or Morton, or the combination teach wherein the instructions are further configured to determine the tooth shape features of the one or more reference teeth for one or more of: mesial-distal width, buccal-lingual width and crown center.
However, Bergersen teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to determine the tooth shape features of the one or more reference teeth for one or more of: mesial-distal width, buccal-lingual width and crown center ("The mesial-distal width of the lower permanent central, if erupted, may be measured to get the approximate sizes of the upper permanent teeth. ", Paragraph [0212]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of Somasundaram, in view of Morton, to incorporate using the mesial-distal width to determine tooth features, as disclosed by Bergersen. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to help in tooth identification/classification accuracy.
Claims 20 is rejected (As Best Understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2017/0169562 A1 to Somasundaram et al. (hereinafter Somasundaram) in view of US Publication No. 2017/0273760 A1 to Morton et al. (hereinafter Morton) in further view of Non-Patent Literature "Tooth eruption sequence and dental crowding: a case-control study" to Moshkelgosha et al. (hereinafter Moshkelgosha).
Claim 20
Regarding Claim 20, dependent on claim 6, Somasundaram, in view of Morton, teaches the claim as claimed in claim 6.
Neither Somasundaram, or Morton, or the combination teach wherein the instructions are further configured to output an indication of a percentage of eruption.
However, Moshkelgosha teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to output an indication of a percentage of eruption ("The eruption percent of canines was then calculated by dividing the first measurement by sum of both (a/a+b). A similar procedure was done to calculate the eruption percentage of permanent first premolar.", Materials and Methods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of Somasundaram, in view of Morton, to incorporate an indication of the percent of eruption, as disclosed by Moshkelgosha. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to get a more precise tooth analysis/evaluation so as to suggest the best orthodontic treatment plan to the respective patient being examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, unlike claim 1, requires the use of a first and a second classifier to determine the tooth type and eruption status. While, Somasundaram teaches a first classifier, neither Somasundaram, or Morton, or Moshkelgosha, or the combination teach or suggest a conditional first and second classifier approach as recited in the claim, wherein the out put of the first classifier is (fully erupted permanent tooth “YES” or not fully erupted permanent tooth “NO”) and the second classifier outputs (permanent partially erupted/un-erupted tooth or primary partially erupted/un-erupted tooth). The remaining prior art of record fail to cure these deficiencies. Therefore claim 4 has been allowed.
Claim 5, dependent on claim 4, has been allowed by virtue of its dependency on claim 4.
Claims 11 and 17 – 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ronde Miller whose telephone number is (703) 756-5686 The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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 Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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.
/RONDE LEE MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights