DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 4/8/26.
2. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
3. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1 and 12 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Response: Double Patenting
5. Examiner Response:
The applicant states that a Terminal Disclaimer will be filed once the claims are
considered allowable. Therefore, the Double Patenting rejection is being maintained.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
6. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the recent amended limitation that states “and fabricating
dental appliances that have respective geometries corresponding to the plurality of digital
models.” cannot be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. (Remarks: page 9)
7. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the recently amended limitation that states “and fabricating
dental appliances that have respective geometries corresponding to the plurality of digital
models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a
solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the geometries are or how the digital models are
for the generation of appliances. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
8. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the adjusting of the treatment plan and fabrication steps are
not a generic "add-on" but are functionally tethered to the purported judicial exception in a way
that narrows the claim to a specific, practical application. The applicant also argues that the
recently amended adjusting and the fabricating limitation steps impose meaningful limits on the
claims such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention and are integrated
into the claims as a whole. (Remarks: page 9)
9. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the adjusting limitation that states “and adjusting the digital
treatment plan when the average change in position is greater than at least one of the one
or more threshold changes in position” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be
conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with
the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping
of abstract ideas.
Also, the recently amended limitation that states “wherein adjusting the
digital treatment plan comprises generating a plurality of digital models that include a
plurality of stage-wise subsequent tooth positions of the first and second teeth according to
the adjusted digital treatment plan” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where
it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the wise subsequent tooth
positions are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
With respect to claim 1, U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches A computing device implemented method of digital treatment planning (Col. 2 lines 13-15 “Embodiments of the present disclosure include computing device related, system, and method embodiments for determining dental treatment difficulty”
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches obtaining a scan of a patient's dentition in a current
configuration (Col. 3 lines 4-7 “Virtual dental models from a scan of a patient's dentition can be provided with computer-aided tooth-treatment systems. An initial digital data set (IDDS) representing an initial tooth arrangement may be obtained in a variety of ways”, Col. 3 lines 18-21 “ A positive model and/or negative impression of the patient's teeth or a tooth may be scanned using an X-ray, laser scanner, destructive scantier, structured light, and/or other range acquisition system to produce the IDDS.”
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches wherein in the current configuration, a first tooth of the patient's dentition is in a first initial position and a second tooth of the patient's dentition is in a second initial position (Col. 2 lines 15-19 “For example, one or more method embodiments include, receiving an initial and subsequent position of each of a first tooth and a second tooth and calculating a change in position of each of the first tooth and the second tooth.”
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches processing the scan of the patient’s dentition to derive a virtual three-dimensional (3D) model of the patient’s dentition (Col. 3 lines 4-7 “Virtual dental models from a scan of a patient's dentition can be provided with computer-aided tooth-treatment systems. An initial digital data set (IDDS) representing an initial tooth arrangement may be obtained in a variety of ways”
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches wherein the virtual 3D model corresponds to an initial dental model of the patient’s arch in the current configuration, including the first tooth in the first initial position and the second tooth in the second initial position (Col. 3 lines 32-36 “One or more embodiments of the present disclosure include receiving a virtual IDDS and a desired position of a tooth contained in the virtual IDDS. The initial dental model 100 (e.g., virtual IDDS) can also include a model of an individual tooth (e.g., tooth 110-1) that is part of a full dental model, such as full dental model 100”
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches generating a digital treatment plan for moving the patient’s dentition from the initial dental model toward a target dental model (Col. 3 line 67- Col. 4 lines 1-2 “For example, a patient and his or her treatment provider may plan to have the patient's teeth aligned to a particular desired position.”
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches wherein the first tooth moves from the first initial position toward a first subsequent position and the second tooth moves from the second initial position toward a second subsequent position (Col. 2 lines 15-19 “For example, one or more method embodiments include, receiving an initial and subsequent position of each of a first tooth and a second tooth and calculating a change in position of each of the first tooth and the second tooth.”
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches determining changes in position of the first and second teeth between the initial and target dental models relative to an arch line of the initial dental model by: projecting a first distance between the first initial position of the first tooth and the first subsequent position of the first tooth onto the arch line (Col. 4 lines 21-25 “The changes in position of each of the first tooth and the second tooth can be projected onto a reference line (e.g., an arch line) at 206. For instance, the center point of the tooth (e.g., the first and/or second tooth) at its initial and subsequent positions can be projected onto the reference line.”
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches and projecting a second distance between the second initial position of the second tooth and the second subsequent position of the second tooth onto the arch line (Col. 4 lines 21-25 “The changes in position of each of the first tooth and the second tooth can be projected onto a reference line (e.g., an arch line) at 206. For instance, the center point of the tooth (e.g., the first and/or second tooth) at its initial and subsequent positions can be projected onto the reference line.”
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches calculating an average change in position using a first change in position of the first tooth and a second change in position of the second tooth (Col. 4 lines 14-18 “For example, based on root movement measurements, an amount (e.g., an average amount) of mesial and/or distal movement of the first and second teeth in a quadrant can be calculated.”
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches determining a treatment difficulty of anterior-posterior (A-P) correction by comparing the calculated average change in position to one or more threshold changes in position (Col. 4 lines 14-20 “For example, based on root movement measurements, an amount (e.g., an average amount) of mesial and/or distal movement of the first and second teeth in a quadrant can be calculated. This amount can be compared to one or more thresholds to determine an amount of A-P correction, as will be discussed further herein.”
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches and adjusting the digital treatment plan when the average change in position is greater than at least one of the one or more threshold changes in position. (Col. 5 lines 4-13 “A determination regarding whether to adjust a dental treatment plan can also be made based on the threshold comparison. For example, if an original treatment plan was based on an assumption of A-P correction movement in the quadrant, hut it is determined that the calculated average change in position is less than a threshold, the original treatment plan may be changed. This may occur, for example, if it is determined that the treatment plan is too difficult, for instance, for a recommended treatment provider to perform.”).
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches “wherein adjusting the digital treatment plan comprises generating a plurality of digital models that include a plurality of stage-wise subsequent tooth positions of the first and second teeth according to the adjusted digital treatment plan” (Col. 3 lines 32-48 “One or more embodiments of the present disclosure include receiving a virtual IDDS and a desired position of a tooth contained in the virtual IDDS. The initial dental model 100 (e.g., virtual IDDS) can also include a model of an individual tooth (e.g., tooth 110-1) that is part of a full dental model, such as full dental model 100. (18) FIG. 1B illustrates a target dental model 120 (e.g., a target virtual dental model) corresponding to the initial dental model illustrated in FIG. 1A according to the present disclosure. The target dental model 120 can be created by modifying the initial dental model 100 according to one or more treatment goals. (19) The one or more treatment goals can be case-specific (e.g., specific to the particular patient on which the initial dental model 100 was based). A target dental model can also include a target model of an individual tooth (e.g., tooth 110-2) that is part of a full dental model similar to full target dental model 120.”).
U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches “and fabricating dental appliances that have respective geometries corresponding to the plurality of digital models.” (Col. 1 lines 46-51 “For many treatment providers, knowing how difficult a treatment will be can be useful in dental treatment planning. For example, it can indicate to a treatment provider the length of treatment, what dental appliances may be needed, and/or whether the treatment professional has the proper training and/or is capable of treating the patient.”)
With respect to claim 2, U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches wherein adjusting the digital treatment plan includes adjusting the first and second subsequent positions of respective first and second teeth such that the average change in position is within at least one of the one or more threshold changes in position. (Col. 5 lines 4-13 “A determination regarding whether to adjust a dental treatment plan can also be made based on the threshold comparison. For example, if an original treatment plan was based on an assumption of A-P correction movement in the quadrant, hut it is determined that the calculated average change in position is less than a threshold, the original treatment plan may be changed. This may occur, for example, if it is determined that the treatment plan is too difficult, for instance, for a recommended treatment provider to perform.”).
With respect to claim 3, U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches wherein the first and second distances are determined based on center points of the first and second teeth. (Col. 4 lines 8-14 “The distance between a center point of a tooth (e.g., the first and/or second tooth) in an initial position and a center point of the tooth in a subsequent position may be determined when calculating a change in position, and calculating the changes in position can further include calculating root movement measurements of the first tooth (e.g., canine tooth) and the second tooth (e.g., posterior tooth).”).
With respect to claim 4, U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches wherein the first and second distances are determined based on root movements of the first and second teeth. (Col. 4 lines 8-14 “The distance between a center point of a tooth (e.g., the first and/or second tooth) in an initial position and a center point of the tooth in a subsequent position may be determined when calculating a change in position, and calculating the changes in position can further include calculating root movement measurements of the first tooth (e.g., canine tooth) and the second tooth (e.g., posterior tooth).”).
With respect to claim 5, U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches wherein the first and second teeth are in the same quadrant of the patient’s dentition. (Col. 4 lines 62-66 “For example, if the threshold change in position is 4.0 millimeters, and the calculated average change in position is greater than 4.0 millimeters, then there is A-P correction movement in the quadrant containing the first and second teeth.”).
With respect to claim 6, U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches determining treatment difficulty of A-P correction for multiple quadrants of the patient’s dentition (Col. 2 lines 46-52 “Anterior-posterior (A-P) correction is a movement of teeth in a quadrant (e.g., upper left, upper right, lower left, lower right) when movements of teeth in a segment of the quadrant between a first molar and a canine, along an arch are all in a distal direction (e.g., toward the last tooth in a quadrant of a dental arch) or all in a mesial direction (e.g., direction toward an anterior midline in a dental arch).).
and adjusting the digital treatment plan for those quadrants having an average change in position that is greater than at least one of the one or more threshold changes in position. (Col. 5 lines 4-13 “A determination regarding whether to adjust a dental treatment plan can also be made based on the threshold comparison. For example, if an original treatment plan was based on an assumption of A-P correction movement in the quadrant, hut it is determined that the calculated average change in position is less than a threshold, the original treatment plan may be changed. This may occur, for example, if it is determined that the treatment plan is too difficult, for instance, for a recommended treatment provider to perform.”).
With respect to claim 7, U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches wherein the one or more threshold changes in position are based on a skill level of a treatment provider. (Col. 5 lines 28-34 “A determination regarding whether to adjust the dental treatment plan can be made based on a comparison of the dental treatment difficult to a treatment provider skill level. For example, a treatment provider may have certain abilities and/or a certain level of skill that allows for him or her to provide a particular level of treatment (e.g., at or below a certain treatment difficulty level).”).
With respect to claim 8, U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches wherein determining the treatment difficulty of A-P correction includes comparing the average change in position to a table of difficulty levels. (Col. 5 lines 14-17 “In some embodiments, a determined dental treatment difficulty can be compared to a table of difficulty ranges to determine a level of difficulty for a quadrant of teeth, among other benefits”
With respect to claim 9, U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches wherein the first and second distances are based on mesial and/or distal movements of respective first and second teeth. (Col. 4 lines 8-18 “The distance between a center point of a tooth (e.g., the first and/or second tooth) in an initial position and a center point of the tooth in a subsequent position may be determined when calculating a change in position, and calculating the changes in position can further include calculating root movement measurements of the first tooth (e.g., canine tooth) and the second tooth (e.g., posterior tooth). For example, based on root movement measurements, an amount (e.g., an average amount) of mesial and/or distal movement of the first and second teeth in a quadrant can be calculated.”).
With respect to claim 10, U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches wherein the first tooth is a canine tooth and the second tooth is a posterior tooth. (Col. 3 lines 63-65 “In various embodiments, the first tooth may be a canine tooth, and the second tooth may be a posterior tooth (e.g., a molar)”).
With respect to claim 11, U.S. Patent 11,986,369 teaches displaying one or more measures of treatment difficulty for the digital treatment plan using the treatment difficulty of A-P correction. (Col. 7 lines 1-3 “The processor 452 can execute instructions to provide a visual indication of a treatment plan and/or dental treatment difficulty on the display 466.”).
Claims 14 and 16-20 recite the same substantive limitations as claims 2-7 above, and are rejected using the same teachings.
11,986,369
38
39
40
18/629,797
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 1, the examiner has not seen any written description of and fabricating dental appliances that have respective geometries corresponding to the plurality of digital models. In paragraph [0006] of the specification it states “For many treatment providers, knowing how difficult a treatment will be can be useful in dental treatment planning. For example, it can indicate to a treatment provider the length of treatment, what dental appliances may be needed, and/or whether the treatment professional has the proper training and/or is capable of treating the patient.”. In paragraph [0053] of the specification it states “For example, in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 4, the system can include connectivity to a scanning device 463, a camera dock 464, an input device 465 (e.g., a keyboard, mouse, etc.), a display device 466 (e.g., a monitor), a printer 467, and/or one or more other input devices 465. The input/output interface 462 can receive executable instructions and/or data, storable in the data storage device (e.g., memory 454), representing a digital dental model of a patient's dentition and/or initial and subsequent positions of a first tooth (e.g., a canine) and second tooth (e.g., a posterior tooth).”. There’s no mentioning of fabricating dental appliances that have respective geometries corresponding to the plurality of digital models.
Also, dependent claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), since these claims depend upon claim 1.
In claim 12, the examiner has not seen any written description of and fabricating dental appliances that have respective geometries corresponding to the plurality of digital models
In paragraph [0006] of the specification it states “For many treatment providers, knowing how difficult a treatment will be can be useful in dental treatment planning. For example, it can indicate to a treatment provider the length of treatment, what dental appliances may be needed, and/or whether the treatment professional has the proper training and/or is capable of treating the patient.”. In paragraph [0053] of the specification it states “For example, in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 4, the system can include connectivity to a scanning device 463, a camera dock 464, an input device 465 (e.g., a keyboard, mouse, etc.), a display device 466 (e.g., a monitor), a printer 467, and/or one or more other input devices 465. The input/output interface 462 can receive executable instructions and/or data, storable in the data storage device (e.g., memory 454), representing a digital dental model of a patient's dentition and/or initial and subsequent positions of a first tooth (e.g., a canine) and second tooth (e.g., a posterior tooth).”. There’s no mentioning of. In paragraph [0006] of the specification it states “For many treatment providers, knowing how difficult a treatment will be can be useful in dental treatment planning. For example, it can indicate to a treatment provider the length of treatment, what dental appliances may be needed, and/or whether the treatment professional has the proper training and/or is capable of treating the patient.”. In paragraph [0053] of the specification it states “For example, in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 4, the system can include connectivity to a scanning device 463, a camera dock 464, an input device 465 (e.g., a keyboard, mouse, etc.), a display device 466 (e.g., a monitor), a printer 467, and/or one or more other input devices 465. The input/output interface 462 can receive executable instructions and/or data, storable in the data storage device (e.g., memory 454), representing a digital dental model of a patient's dentition and/or initial and subsequent positions of a first tooth (e.g., a canine) and second tooth (e.g., a posterior tooth).”. There’s no mentioning of and fabricating dental appliances that have respective geometries corresponding to the plurality of digital models. Also, dependent claims 13-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), since these claims depend upon claim 12.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1 and 12
Regarding step 1, claims 1 and 12 is directed towards a method and a system, which has the claim fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites wherein in the current configuration, a first tooth of the patient's dentition is in a first initial position and a second tooth of the patient's dentition is in a second initial position. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “processing the scan of the patient’s dentition to derive a virtual three-dimensional (3D) model of the patient’s dentition”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper, where a patient’s dentition that is scanned can be processed. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the virtual 3D model corresponds to an initial dental model of the patient’s arch in the current configuration including the first tooth in the first initial position and the second tooth in the second initial position”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “generating a digital treatment plan for moving the patient’s dentition from the initial dental model toward a target dental model”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first tooth moves from the first initial position toward a first subsequent position and the second tooth moves from the second initial position toward a second subsequent position”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining changes in position of the first and second teeth between the initial and target dental models relative to an arch line of the initial dental model by: projecting a first distance between the first initial position of the first tooth and the first subsequent position of the first tooth onto the arch line”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and projecting a second distance between the second initial position of the second tooth and the second subsequent position of the second tooth onto the arch line”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “calculating an average change in position using a first change in position of the first tooth and a second change in position of the second tooth”. This limitation is calculating an average change in position using the first change in position of the first tooth and the second change in position of the second tooth. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determining a treatment difficulty of anterior-posterior (A-P) correction by comparing the calculated average change in position to one or more threshold changes in position”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and adjusting the digital treatment plan when the average change in position is greater than at least one of the one or more threshold changes in position.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “obtaining a scan of a patient's
dentition in a current configuration” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e.
pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, where the scanning taking
place is to obtain a scan of the patient’s dentition, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “wherein adjusting the digital treatment plan comprises
generating a plurality of digital models that include a plurality of stage-wise subsequent
tooth positions of the first and second teeth according to the adjusted digital treatment
plan” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution.
This limitation doesn’t indicate what the wise subsequent tooth positions are. See MPEP
2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim
fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim
limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how
the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result,
does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more
because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and fabricating dental appliances that have respective
geometries corresponding to the plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the geometries are or how the digital models are for the generation of appliances. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim recites the additional elements of a virtual 3D model. The virtual 3D model are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “obtaining a scan of a patient's
dentition in a current configuration” is also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “wherein adjusting the digital treatment plan comprises
generating a plurality of digital models that include a plurality of stage-wise subsequent
tooth positions of the first and second teeth according to the adjusted digital treatment
plan” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution.
This limitation doesn’t indicate what the wise subsequent tooth positions are. See MPEP
2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim
fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim
limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how
the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result,
does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more
because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and fabricating dental appliances that have respective
geometries corresponding to the plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the geometries are or how the digital models are for the generation of appliances. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the virtual 3D model amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 12
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 12 recites “wherein in the current configuration, a first tooth of the patient's dentition is in a first initial position and a second tooth of the patient's dentition is in a second initial position”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “processing the scan of the patient’s dentition to derive a virtual three-dimensional (3D) model of the patient’s dentition”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper, where a patient’s dentition that is scanned can be processed. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the virtual 3D model corresponds to an initial dental model of the patient’s arch in the current configuration including the first tooth in the first initial position and the second tooth in the second initial position”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “generating a digital treatment plan for moving the patient’s dentition from the initial dental model toward a target dental model”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the first tooth moves from the first initial position toward a first subsequent position and the second tooth moves from the second initial position toward a second subsequent position”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “determining changes in position of the first and second teeth between the initial and target dental models relative to an arch line of the initial dental model by: projecting a first distance between the first initial position of the first tooth and the first subsequent position of the first tooth onto the arch line”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “and projecting a second distance between the second initial position of the second tooth and the second subsequent position of the second tooth onto the arch line”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “calculating an average change in position using a first change in position of the first tooth and a second change in position of the second tooth”. This limitation is calculating an average change in position using the first change in position of the first tooth and the second change in position of the second tooth. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “determining a treatment difficulty of anterior-posterior (A-P) correction by comparing the calculated average change in position to one or more threshold changes in position”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites “and adjusting the digital treatment plan when the average change in position is greater than at least one of the one or more threshold changes in position.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “obtaining a scan of a patient's
dentition in a current configuration” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e.
pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, where the scanning taking
place is to obtain a scan of the patient’s dentition, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “wherein adjusting the digital treatment plan comprises
generating a plurality of digital models that include a plurality of stage-wise subsequent
tooth positions of the first and second teeth according to the adjusted digital treatment
plan” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution.
This limitation doesn’t indicate what the wise subsequent tooth positions are. See MPEP
2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim
fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim
limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how
the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result,
does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more
because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and fabricating dental appliances that have respective
geometries corresponding to the plurality of digital models” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the geometries are or how the digital models are for the generation of appliances. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computing device and virtual 3D model amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claims 2 and 14
Dependent claims 2 and 14 recites “wherein adjusting the digital treatment plan includes adjusting the first and second subsequent positions of respective first and second teeth such that the average change in position is within at least one of the one or more threshold changes in position.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 3 and 16
Dependent claims 3 and 16 recites “wherein the first and second distances are determined based on center points of the first and second teeth.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 4 and 17
Dependent claims 4 and 17 recites “wherein the first and second distances are determined based on root movements of the first and second teeth.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 5 and 18
Dependent claims 5 and 18 recites “wherein the first and second teeth are in the same quadrant of the patient’s dentition.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 6 and 19
Dependent claims 6 and 19 recites “determining treatment difficulty of A-P correction for multiple quadrants of the patient’s dentition”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 6 and 19 recites “and adjusting the digital treatment plan for those quadrants having an average change in position that is greater than at least one of the one or more threshold changes in position.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 7 and 20
Dependent claims 7 and 20 recites “wherein the one or more threshold changes in position are based on a skill level of a treatment provider.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein determining the treatment difficulty of A-P correction includes comparing the average change in position to a table of difficulty levels.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9
Dependent claim 9 recites “wherein the first and second distances are based on mesial and/or distal movements of respective first and second teeth.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 10
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the first tooth is a canine tooth and the second tooth is a posterior tooth.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11
Dependent claim 11 recites “displaying one or more measures of treatment difficulty for the digital treatment plan using the treatment difficulty of A-P correction.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, where the build parameter is provided to a consolidation device to build the component, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 13
Dependent claim 13 recites “further comprising a display, wherein the method further comprises instructing the display to display one or more measures of treatment difficulty for the digital treatment plan based on the treatment difficulty of A-P correction.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, where the build parameter is provided to a consolidation device to build the component, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 15
Dependent claim 15 recites “wherein adjusting the digital treatment plan includes adjusting one or more of a type of dental treatment and a duration of dental treatment.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Even with the recent amendment, the claims still contain allowable subject matter. The
reasons for allowance are shown in the previous office action dated 6/9/25.
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 BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights