DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a final rejection. Claims 1-9, 12-38, 40-55, as filed 01/30/2026, are currently pending of which claims 49-55 have been withdrawn in response to the requirement for restriction dated 09/22/2025. Claims 1-9, 12-38, and 40-48 are considered below.
No priority is acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9, 12-30, and 32-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OrthoCAD (OrthoCAD User Manual Version 5.9.1.50) in view of Kitching (US20080305454A1).
Regarding claim 1, OrthoCAD discloses: A method of automatically determining planned orthodontic treatment scores and treatment performance scores using three-dimensional (3D) virtual models, the method comprising the following steps:
--obtaining, in a computer-implemented software system, at least one of virtual stage models or dental mesh models wherein the at least one of virtual stage models or dental mesh models comprises at least one digital 3D virtual model of upper and lower dental arches of a patient that define initial tooth positions prior to an orthodontic treatment (Accessing Patient Data on pages 21-25 via a website or via an application on pages 26-27; “presenting a 3D model of previously scanned orthodontic cases, page 17; pre-treatment and post-treatment views on page 58; upper and lower arches in Figure 13 on page 1);
--processing, in the computer-implemented software system, the at least one of virtual stage models or dental mesh models to create one or more composite stage models (Figure 13 showing the display of a patient model; “presenting a 3D model of previously scanned orthodontic cases” on page 17; various toggles in displays on pages 36-42);
--determining, in the computer-implemented software system, virtual measurement values from geometries in (i) the at least one of virtual stage models or dental mesh models and (ii) the one or more composite stage models (measurement techniques in Chapter 10 on pages 80-107; virtual calipers; these measurements are taken on the virtual stage model and composite model, pages 108-135);
--applying, in the computer-implemented software system, index classifiers to the virtual measurement values (discrepancy index determination process on pages 108-135).
OrthoCAD discloses printing out reports with discrepancy index scores (e.g., Chapter 12) and showing post-treatment preview with appliances which amounts to a planned treatment (e.g., page 36 and 40). OrthoCAD does not expressly disclose, but Kitching teaches:
--wherein the one or more composite stage models comprise one or more digital 3D virtual models of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient that define real tooth positions during one or more treatment stages of the orthodontic treatment (“generate a treatment plan for a patient, generate a customized set of treatment guidelines, and generate progress tracking information, for example, a determination of whether an actual arrangement of the patient's teeth deviates from a planned tooth arrangement,” [0008]; progress tracking 212 in FIG. 3A; FIG. 8 shows an iterative process of taking new impressions and updating the treatment based thereon);
--outputting, from the computer-implemented software system, planned treatment performance scores and real treatment performance scores based on the applied index classifiers to evaluate real treatment performance (“as new information is obtained during progress tracking measures, various data management techniques can be employed to make use of newly obtained data, manage existing data (e.g., data in initial treatment planning), and/or incorporate or seamlessly synchronize new information into treatment planning (e.g., revised treatment plan), staging of the teeth, system interface with treating professionals and/or patients, and the like,” [0083]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the OrthoCAD analysis including the report output to include the progress tracking of Kitching because this would improve the quality of the orthodontic treatment provided to the patient by providing standardized performance feedback to the orthodontist and help keep treatment on track (Kitching [0006])
Regarding claim 2, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the obtaining step comprises obtaining virtual stage models defining an orthodontic virtual treatment plan from a non-transitory computer readable medium (selecting a storage folder on page 23).
Regarding claim 3, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein a set of virtual stage models obtained during the obtaining step defines initial positions of anatomical objects and constructed objects within the upper and lower dental arches of the patient (pre- and post-treatment views with appliances on page 58; preview of appliances such as on page 36 is interpreted as a virtual treatment plan).
Regarding claim 4, OrthoCAD discloses: 4. The method of claim 2, wherein a set of virtual stage models obtained during the obtaining step defines planned positions of anatomical objects and constructed objects within the upper and lower dental arches of the patient (pre- and post-treatment views with appliances on page 58; preview of appliances such as on page 36 is interpreted as a virtual treatment plan).
Regarding claim 5, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the obtaining step further comprises obtaining dental mesh models of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient from a non-transitory computer readable medium (selecting a storage folder on page 23).
Regarding claim 6, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the dental mesh models define real positions of anatomical geometries, of the upper and lower dental arches, during any treatment stage (anatomical positions of the teeth are shown throughout the figures such as in figures 119-120).
Regarding claim 7, OrthoCAD does not expressly disclose but Kitching further teaches: wherein the dental mesh models define real positions of anatomical geometries, of the upper and lower dental arches, during a retention stage (“Treatment can be planned proactively or pre-planned for administration to a patient in a series of one or more phases, with at least some of the phases including a set of appliances that are worn successively by the patient to reposition the teeth through pre-planned arrangements and eventually toward a selected final arrangement,” [0007]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the processing step comprises overlaying dental mesh models onto virtual stage models to create one or more composite stage models (toggling on/off the Appliances on page 36-42; figure 31; figure 13).
Regarding claim 9, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the processing step further comprises repositioning objects within virtual stage models to match real positions of geometries within dental mesh models (toggling on/off the Appliances on pages 36-42 and figure 31; pre/post view on page 58).
Regarding claim 12, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the determining step comprises performing a series of automated virtual measurements, using virtual stage models and the one or more composite stage models (page 81).
Regarding claim 13, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the virtual measurements are performed on at least one of (i) geometries within anatomical objects representing tooth structures and positions or (ii) geometries defining anatomical objects which represent periodontal tissues and positions (page 81).
Regarding claim 14, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the applying step comprises applying index classifiers to individual measurement values, a group of measurement values, or a combination thereof (applying ABO discrepancy index in Chapter 11).
Regarding claim 15, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the applied index classifiers are defined by at least one of the Discrepancy Index (DI) or the Cast-Radiograph (CR) evaluation (applying ABO discrepancy index in Chapter 11).
Regarding claim 16, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the applying step further comprises combining total Discrepancy Index scores with total Cast-Radiograph scores to create standardized index scores for each set of the measured (i) at least one of the virtual stage models or the dental mesh models and (ii) the one or more composite stage models (ABO DI Scoring Sheet on page 118).
Regarding claim 17, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein standardized index scores for an initial stage virtual stage model define planned treatment baseline scores (standardized index scores for an initial stage model and treatment performance baseline scores (ABO DI Scoring Sheet, page 118; discrepancy index determination on page 108-135).
OrthoCAD does not expressly disclose but Kitching teaches: that the initial stage data serves as a baseline against which teeth positions are compared during the treatment (“any resulting errors from the surface matching algorithm are compared to predetermined tolerances to determine if the resulting errors are less than the predetermined tolerance,” [0070]; “generating a case difficulty assessment based on information received, generating a treatment plan for a patient, providing customized set(s) of treatment guidelines, and tracking progression of the patient's teeth along a treatment path or according to the treatment plan,” [0008]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein standardized index scores for a planned stage virtual stage model define planned treatment performance scores (standardized index scores for an initial stage model and treatment performance baseline scores (ABO DI Scoring Sheet, page 118; discrepancy index determination on page 108-135). This is viewed in light of Kitching’s teachings regarding treatment tracking.
Regarding claim 19, OrthoCAD does not expressly disclose but Kitching teaches: wherein standardized index scores for a composite virtual stage model define real treatment performance scores (“a determination of whether an actual arrangement of the patient's teeth deviates from a planned tooth arrangement,” [0008]; errors and error tolerance in [0070]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the outputting step comprises automatically outputting individual measurement scores, total index scores, and standardized index scores to a non-transitory computer readable medium (save and export ABO DI Scoring Sheet on page 118).
Regarding claim 21, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein a virtual stage model obtained during the obtaining step of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient contains segmented objects and metadata defined by a treatment plan (post-treatment with appliances on pages 36-42).
Regarding claim 22, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the segmented objects are formed by anatomical geometries or constructed geometries (post-treatment with appliances on pages 36-42).
Regarding claim 23, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the anatomical geometries represent tooth structures and gingival tissues (post-treatment with appliances on pages 36-42).
Regarding claim 24, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the constructed geometries represent non-anatomical objects (post-treatment with appliances on pages 36-42).
Regarding claim 25, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the metadata contains information not expressly defined by geometries of the virtual stage model (post-treatment with appliances on pages 36-42).
Regarding claim 26, OrthoCAD discloses: obtaining a dental mesh model of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient at a treatment stage or a retention stage of orthodontic treatment (patient model can be obtained from past orders on page 22 which is a treatment stage).
Regarding claim 27, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the dental mesh model is generated from at least one of a three-dimensional scanner or a physical mold of the patient's teeth (Figure 13).
Regarding claim 28, OrthoCAD discloses: wherein the dental mesh model is generated from a composite stage model derived from a combination of diagnostic dental mesh models, planned virtual stage models, and 2D images depicting positions of real anatomical geometries of the upper and lower dental arches of the patient (displaying the models with appliances as described on pages 36-42 and 58).
Claims 29, 30, and 32-48 are substantially similar to claims 1-28 and are rejected with the same reasoning.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OrthoCAD (OrthoCAD User Manual Version 5.9.1.50) in view of Kitching (US20080305454A1) and Bulatkin (Alex Bulatkin, "Automate file retrieval from S3 Glacier when using FSx for Lustre"; 26 NOV 2021).
Regarding claim 31, OrthoCAD discloses obtaining the models via a website (“iTero” on pages 21-24) and/or using OrthoCAD software installed on an end user’s computer a connected to the Align server (pages 17-18 and page 26) and a manual process of requesting 3D models on page 20. OrthoCAD also has an option for automatically retrieving additional view of models on page 142. OrthoCAD does not expressly disclose but Bulatkin teaches: obtain[ing] data by automated retrieval instructions within a virtual computing environment (using Amazon Web Services to automate retrieval of files; “the file first must be retrieved from S3 Glacier and put into the S3 Standard storage class. This solution will automate this retrieval process through the use of Amazon EventBridge and the AWS Lambda function” page 1).
One of ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand the dental data processing systems of OrthoCAD and Kitching to include the automated file retrieval process in a virtual environment as in Bulatkin because this would “free up storage administrators and users from retrieving files manually and give time back to work on other innovative projects” (page 10).
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to combinations including OrthoCAD and Buschang. These arguments are moot in view of the new combinations including Kitching.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action (See MPEP 706.07(a)). Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 JOSHUA BLANCHETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-2299. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:30AM - 6:00PM, EST.
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, Shahid Merchant, can be reached on (571) 270-1360. 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.
/JOSHUA B BLANCHETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624