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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 03/13/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The addition of 2mm-4mm of the height of the crown in Paragraph [0072] was not in the original disclosure and adding this language is new matter. Examiner recommends Applicant utilize the already disclosed limitation of 1mm-3mm in Paragraph [0072] for the claim language.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1-10, and 31-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Determination as to whether the claims are directed to a statutory category as specified in 35 U.S.C. 101 (MPEP 2106.03)
The claim(s) recite(s) a system for remote progress tracking (claims 1-10) and a method for remote progress tracking (claims 31-40).
Step 2A Prong 1 – Determination as to whether the claims recite a Judicial Exception including an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP 2106.04)
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, and 10, the steps of generating a 3D model of an impression of the occlusal surfaces, registering the teeth of the two 3D models, generating an updated model, generating an updated treatment plan, and generating a segmented model are abstract ideas, steps capable of being performed in the human mind. The generating and registering steps are mental processes orthodontists perform manually in aligning acquiring, modeling and comparing two 3D data sets for orthodontic treatment planning and tracking. The inclusion of a system that comprises a processor and memory is a conventional means of executing the abstract ideas and does not amount to more than the mental processes being performed. While the impression is disclosed as being in an impression material having a 2D surface pattern, the method does not explicitly state a step of taking the impression in this impression material; thus, Examiner understands this step of the method as pre-solution activity.
Regarding claims 5, and 7-9, the bite registration impression is further defined with conventional characteristics that are well-known in the orthodontic field for capturing a patient’s bite.
Regarding claims 31-33, 36 and 40, the steps of generating a 3D model of an impression of the occlusal surfaces, registering the teeth of the two 3D models, generating an updated model, generating an updated treatment plan, and generating a segmented model are abstract ideas, steps capable of being performed in the human mind. The generating and registering steps are mental processes orthodontists perform manually in aligning acquiring, modeling and comparing two 3D data sets for orthodontic treatment planning and tracking. As stated previously, while the impression is disclosed as being in an impression material having a 2D surface pattern, the method does not explicitly state a step of taking the impression in this impression material; thus, Examiner understands this step of the method as pre-solution activity.
Regarding claims 35, and 37-39, the bite registration impression is further defined with conventional characteristics that are well-known in the orthodontic field for capturing a patient’s bite. Further, the method as a whole is being claimed, not the apparatus of the bite impression block, and the method is a mental processes.
Regarding claim 34, the scanning of the physical model is a conventional step that is necessary to acquiring the digital data and does not amount to more than the abstract idea, as scanning physical models is well known in the dental art.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Determination as to whether the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Regarding claims 1-10 and 31-40, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea(s) to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.04(d)). Receiving and scanning the physical impression model and patient dentition is insignificant extra solution activity necessary to generating a treatment plan and evaluating patient progress and does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood and conventional. For at least these reasons and as claims 1-10 and 31-40 do not recite additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the abstract mental processes and mathematical concepts identified for claims 1-10 and 31-40 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B – Determination as to whether the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Regarding claims 1-10 and 31-40 , as set forth above with respect to Step 2A Prong One, the claimed method steps are all capable of being performed mentally and represent nothing more than concepts related to performing observations, evaluations, and judgements, which fall within the judicial exception. The claimed steps of generating a 3D model of an impression of the occlusal surfaces, registering the teeth of the two 3D models, generating an updated model, generating an updated treatment plan, and generating a segmented model require nothing more than a generic computer processor. The disclosure does not describe additional features to suggest these devices are beyond a generic component for the apparatus. Additionally, the design method is not disclosed as improving the manner in which the apparatus operates. Mere recitation of generic conventional processing used in a conventional manner to perform conventional computer functions that are well understood and routine does not amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. The claims do not go beyond inputting data (receiving, scanning) and processing data (generating, registering, segmenting) with a standard computer.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. The claims set forth do not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine and they do not require that the method particularly transforms a particular article. When viewed as a combination, the identified additional elements set forth a process of analyzing information of specific content and are not directed to any particularly asserted inventive technology for performing these functions. The disclosure and claims do not require anything beyond a generic computer to obtain and analyze the data according to mathematical algorithms. Therefore, the claimed method and apparatus fall within the judicial exception to patent eligible subject matter of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 6-8, 10, 31-38, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cinader (US 20100260405 A1) in view of Schmitt (US 20120064477 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cinader discloses a system for remote progress tracking of orthodontic treatment (refer to Paragraphs [0013], [0047], [0083], Fig. 3; a system comprising a computing device and software program for digital imaging and registration of dental arrangements is disclosed, where the second dental arrangement represents an in-progress arrangement that is evaluated; the software can be located remotely), the system (refer to Paragraph [0013]) comprising:
a processor (refer to Paragraph [0013]; by definition, a computing device that is running software comprises a processor); and
memory comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the system to (refer to Paragraphs [0013], [0031]: the computing device comprises a memory)
receive a 3D digital model of a patient's dentition including the patient's teeth (102; refer to Paragraph [0037]; the first digital image (100) is virtually separated into 3D images of tooth crown and roots in block 102)
generate a 3D digital model of an impression of occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0048], [0050]-[0051]; the occlusal surfaces of the teeth are provided by scanning the bite plate using 3D scanning techniques for the second digital image);
register the teeth of the 3D digital model of the patient's dentition to the position and orientation of the patient's teeth in the 3D digital model of the impression of the occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth (110; refer to Paragraphs [0061], Fig. 4; elements of the first digital image (100) are registered to the second digital image (108) by rotating and positioning the imaged teeth relative to each other); and
generate an updated 3D digital model of the patient's teeth based on the registration (refer to Paragraph [0073], Fig. 4; a third digital image (232) comprising an integrated single 3D model is derived based on the transformed first digital image (228), and the registration process).
Cinader does not disclose wherein the impression is in an impression material having a 2D surface pattern.
Schmitt discloses an impression body in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0022]), where the impression body is directly printed with a 2D surface pattern, such as grid lines (refer to Paragraphs [0235], [0237], Figs. 24a-24c). The change in the grid line pattern serves as an aid in the three-dimensional capture of the impression (refer to Paragraph [0235]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impression material of Cinader (refer to Paragraph [0050]) with 2D surface patterned impression material as taught by Schmitt in order to aid in the three-dimensional capture of the impression (refer to Paragraph [0235]).
Regarding claim 2, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the system of claim 1; Cinader further discloses wherein the instruction to generate the 3D digital model of the impression of the occlusal surfaces include instructions (refer to Paragraphs [0048], [0050]-[0051]) to:
receive a plurality of 2D images of an impression of the occlusal surface of the patient's teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0048], [0051]; the raw 2D scanning data may be provided by scanning a negative physical dental model representing the second dental arrangement; the bite plate is a negative dental mold representing the teeth in a second arrangement, where multiple images (224) are taken), and wherein the 3D digital model of an impression of occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth is generated from the plurality of 2D images of the impression (refer to Paragraphs [0051], [0082], Fig. 8; the multiple images (224) are registered and recombined to generate a 3D digital image, as shown in Fig. 8 ).
Regarding claim 3, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the system of claim 2; Cinader further discloses wherein the instructions further comprise instruction to generate an updated treatment plan to move the patient's teeth from an arrangement of the teeth in the updated 3D digital model towards a final arrangement (refer to Paragraphs [0040], [0078], Fig. 3; in block 122 a revision to the orthodontic appliance is suggested based on the third digital image; the revised orthodontic appliance is analogous to an updated treatment plan, as virtual appliances are used for deriving the desired teeth positions).
Regarding claim 4, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the system of claim 2; Cinader further discloses wherein the instructions to receive [[a]] the 3D digital model of the impression of the occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth include instructions to generate the 3D digital model of the impression of the occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth (refer to Paragraph [0051]; the scan data for the second digital image is processed, registering and recombining multiple images (224) to generate the 3D digital image).
Regarding claim 5, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the system of claim 1; Cinader is silent to wherein the 2D surface pattern is a 2D surface pattern of colors.
Schmitt further discloses that the 2D surface patterned impression material can be composed of different colors that cannot be mixed with one another and are distributed throughout the impression material (refer to Paragraphs [0158], [0214]). As the 2D surface pattern is directly formed on top of the impression material, and the different colors are distributed throughout the material, the 2D surface pattern is a 2D surface pattern of colors, which allows for specific data to be obtained from each different colored material (refer to Paragraph [0158]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impression material of Cinader (refer to Paragraph [0050]) with colored 2D surface patterned impression material as taught by Schmitt to allow for specific data to be obtained from each different colored material (refer to Paragraph [0158]).
Regarding claim 6, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the system of claim 1; Cinader further discloses wherein the instructions to register include instructions to match the surface features of the teeth of the 3D digital model of the patient's dentition to the surface features of the patient's teeth in the 3D digital model of the impression of the occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth (refer to Paragraph [0061], Fig. 4; elements of the first digital image (100), including tooth crowns, roots and surrounding gingiva are registered with the second digital image (224), which includes the imprints of the occlusal surfaces).
Regarding claim 7, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the system of claim 1; Cinader further discloses wherein the impression includes less than 10% of the height of the crown of the patient's teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0026], [0050]; imprints (202) of the occlusal surfaces are formed on the bite plate (200); by the prior art’s definition, the occlusal direction is towards the outer tips of the patient’s teeth; by capturing the outermost point of the tooth, the impression includes less than 10% of the height of the crown of the patient’s teeth).
Regarding claim 8, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the system of claim 1; Cinader further discloses wherein the impression includes the cusps and grooves of the occlusal surface of the patient's dentition (refer to Paragraph [0050], Fig. 7; imprints (202) are formed on the bite plates (200) of the occlusal surfaces; occlusal surfaces ,by definition, includes the chewing surface, which is comprised of occlusal cusps and grooves).
Regarding claim 10, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the system of claim 1; Cinader further discloses wherein the 3D digital model of a patient's dentition including the patient's teeth is a segmented model (refer to Paragraph [0037]; the first digital image (100) is virtually separated into discrete elements of tooth crowns and roots).
Regarding claim 31, Cinader discloses a method of remote progress tracking of orthodontic treatment (refer to Paragraphs [0008], [0083], Fig. 2; a method for evaluating treatment progress is disclosed, where the software used for the evaluation can be located remotely from the patient), the method comprising:
receiving a 3D digital model of a patient's dentition including the patient's teeth (102; refer to Paragraph [0037]; the first digital image (100) is virtually separated into 3D images of tooth crown and roots in block 102);
generating a 3D digital model of an impression of occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0048], [0050]-[0051]; the occlusal surfaces of the teeth are provided by scanning the bite plate using 3D scanning techniques for the second digital image);
registering the teeth of the 3D digital model of the patient's dentition to the position and orientation of the patient's teeth in the 3D digital model of the impression of the occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth (110; refer to Paragraphs [0061], Fig. 4; elements of the first digital image (100) are registered to the second digital image (108) by rotating and positioning the imaged teeth relative to each other); and
generating an updated 3D digital model of the patient's teeth based on the registration (refer to Paragraph [0073], Fig. 4; a third digital image (232) comprising an integrated single 3D model is derived based on the transformed first digital image (228), and the registration process).
Cinader does not disclose wherein the impression is in an impression material having a 2D surface pattern.
Schmitt discloses an impression body in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0022]), where the impression body is directly printed with a 2D surface pattern, such as grid lines (refer to Paragraphs [0235], [0237], Figs. 24a-24c). The change in the grid line pattern serves as an aid in the three-dimensional capture of the impression (refer to Paragraph [0235]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impression material of Cinader (refer to Paragraph [0050]) with 2D surface patterned impression material as taught by Schmitt in order to aid in the three-dimensional capture of the impression (refer to Paragraph [0235]).
Regarding claim 32, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the method of claim [[30]] 31; Cinader further discloses the method (Fig. 2) further comprising generating an updated treatment plan to move the patient's teeth from an arrangement of the teeth in the updated 3D digital model towards a final arrangement (refer to Paragraphs [0040], [0078], Fig. 3; in block 122 a revision to the orthodontic appliance is suggested based on the third digital image; the revised orthodontic appliance is analogous to an updated treatment plan, as virtual appliances are used for deriving the desired teeth positions).
Regarding claim 33, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the method of claim [[30]] 31; Cinader further discloses wherein receiving a 3D digital model of the impression of the occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth includes generating the 3D digital model of the impression of the occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth (refer to Paragraph [0051]; the scan data for the second digital image is processed, registering and recombining multiple images (224) to generate the 3D digital image).
Regarding claim 34, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the method of claim 32; Cinader further discloses wherein generating the 3D digital model of the impression of the occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth includes scanning the physical bite block impression (refer to Paragraph [0051]; the second digital image (224) is provided by scanning the bite plate (200)).
Regarding claim 55, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the method of claim 33; Cinader is silent to wherein the 2D surface pattern is a 2D surface pattern of colors.
Schmitt further discloses that the 2D surface patterned impression material can be composed of different colors that cannot be mixed with one another and are distributed throughout the impression material (refer to Paragraphs [0158], [0214]). As the 2D surface pattern is directly formed on top of the impression material, and the different colors are distributed throughout the material, the 2D surface pattern is a 2D surface pattern of colors, which allows for specific data to be obtained from each different colored material (refer to Paragraph [0158]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impression material of Cinader (refer to Paragraph [0050]) with colored 2D surface patterned impression material as taught by Schmitt to allow for specific data to be obtained from each different colored material (refer to Paragraph [0158]).
Regarding claim 36, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the method of claim [[30]] 31; Cinader further discloses wherein registering includes matching the surface features of the teeth of the 3D digital model of the patient's dentition to the surface features of the patient's teeth in the 3D digital model of the impression of the occlusal surfaces of the patient's teeth (refer to Paragraph [0061], Fig. 4; elements of the first digital image (100), including tooth crowns, roots and surrounding gingiva are registered with the second digital image (224), which includes the imprints of the occlusal surfaces).
Regarding claim 37, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the method of claim [[30]] 31; Cinader further discloses wherein the impression includes less than 10% of the height of the crown of the patient's teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0026], [0050]; imprints (202) of the occlusal surfaces are formed on the bite plate (200); by the prior art’s definition, the occlusal direction is towards the outer tips of the patient’s teeth; by capturing the outermost point of the tooth, the impression includes less than 10% of the height of the crown of the patient’s teeth).
Regarding claim 38, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the method of claim [[30]] 31; Cinader further discloses wherein the impression includes the cusps and grooves of the occlusal surface of the patient's dentition (refer to Paragraph [0050], Fig. 7; imprints (202) are formed on the bite plates (200) of the occlusal surfaces; occlusal surfaces ,by definition, includes the chewing surface, which is comprised of occlusal cusps and grooves)
Regarding claim 40, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the method of claim [[30]] 31; Cinader further discloses wherein the 3D digital model of a patient's dentition including the patient's teeth is a segmented model (refer to Paragraph [0037]; the first digital image (100) is virtually separated into discrete elements of tooth crowns and roots).
Claim(s) 9 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cinader (US 20100260405 A1) in view of Schmitt (US 20120064477 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 31 above, and further in view of Brady (Silicone Bite Registration Material).
Regarding claims 9 and 39, Cinader and Schmitt disclose the system of claim 1 and method of claim [[30]] 31, but are silent to the impression including between 2mm and 4mm of the crown height.
Brady discloses a method of silicone bite registration in the same field of endeavor. In this method, Brady discloses using enough material wherein the impression includes between 2mm and 4mm of the height of the crown of the patient's teeth (refer to third paragraph; several millimeters beyond the buccal and lingual tooth surfaces are captured, where several is more than two, but fewer than many (Merriam-Webster)). This method step ensures the cusp tips on both sides of the tooth are captured (refer to third paragraph).
Although the range of 2mm-4mm is not explicitly disclosed, the range of several millimeters overlaps with this range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system of bite registration as taught by Cinader and Schmitt with capturing several millimeters of the tooth surface as taught by Brady in order to capture cusp tips on both sides (refer to third paragraph of Brady).
Response to Arguments
The outstanding drawing objection is withdrawn in view of the newly submitted drawing amendment.
The outstanding minor informality objections of the specification are withdrawn in view of the newly submitted specification amendment.
The outstanding objections of claims 2, 4, 31-33, and 36-40 are withdrawn in view of the newly submitted claim amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the arguments for the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Examiner points to the above rejection of claims 1-10 and 31-40. There is no indication in the claim or specification that the claims reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer, rather, the claimed method is merely applied to a computer environment and the computer application automates the method of orthodontic progress tracking. There is also not a practical application step, as the method discloses the impression being in an impression material having a 2D surface pattern, but the method does not explicitly state a step of taking the impression in this impression material; thus, Examiner understands this step of the method as pre-solution activity.
In response to the argument that claims 9 and 19 are not obvious over Cinader in view of Brady, several millimeters, by definition is more than two, but fewer than many, which overlaps with the claimed range. This is highlighted in the above rejection, with a further citation referencing that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5, 31 and 35 regarding the amended claim language of a 2D surface pattern with colors have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lu et al. (US 20130244199 A1) discloses a contrasting color pattern for dental impression materials (refer to Paragraph [0028]).
Ohyama et al. (US 20050220713 A1) discloses a grid, color pattern wax for testing masticatory function (refer to Fig. 1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-7:00 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights