Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/741,728

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRACKING ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT USING CAMERA IMAGES

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jun 12, 2024
Examiner
GARCIA, SANTIAGO
Art Unit
2673
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Align Technology, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
895 granted / 1015 resolved
+26.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1036
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§103
60.2%
+20.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1015 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1, 13 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 13-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,048,605. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they essentially contain the same subject matter with some language changes as seen in the table below. Claim 1 of current application: A method comprising: receiving one or more input two-dimensional (2D) images of a patient’s current teeth taken by a camera device, the one or more input 2D images corresponding to one or more occlusal views of the patient’s current teeth of the patient’s upper and/or lower jaw in a current configuration; accessing one or more rendered 2D images representing target positions of the patient’s teeth at a planned treatment stage, wherein the one or more rendered 2D images are based on virtual camera parameters that correspond to the one or more input 2D images; determining one or more rotational differences between the patients current teeth and the planned treatment stage by comparing silhouettes of corresponding teeth of the one or more input 2D images to the one or more rendered 2D images; and outputting a difference indicator indicating the one or more rotational differences between the patient’s current teeth and the planned treatment stage. As can be seen the differences are “occlusal views” versus using “wide views” in the patent referenced therefore this is a variant of one another. As well as 3D images in the patent however, here one or more images would create a 3D image and is equivalent. Claim 1 of referenced patent: 1. A method, the method comprising: receiving an input two-dimensional (2D) image of a subject's current teeth comprising a wide angle occlusal view of the subject's upper and/or lower jaw at a current treatment stage; determining virtual camera parameters corresponding to the input 2D image; receiving a three-dimensional (3D) model of the subject's upper and/or lower jaw at a planned treatment stage; generating a rendered 2D image of the subject's teeth from the 3D model with the virtual camera parameters; determining differences between the subject's teeth from the input 2D image and the rendered 2D image using tooth centers; and outputting a difference indicator indicating the differences between the subject's current teeth and the planned treatment stage based on the difference between the subject's teeth from the input 2D image and the rendered 2D image. Claim 3 of referenced patent: wherein registering the individual teeth comprises matching tooth silhouette projection between the rendered and input 2D images. 13. A system, comprising: one or more processors; memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory configured to store computer-program instructions, that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving one or more input two-dimensional (2D) images of a patient’s current teeth taken by a camera device, the one or more input 2D images corresponding to one or more occlusal views of the patient’s current teeth of the patient’s upper and/or lower jaw in a current configuration; accessing one or more rendered 2D images representing target positions of the patient’s teeth at a planned treatment stage, wherein the one or more rendered 2D images are based on virtual camera parameters that correspond to the one or more input 2D images; determining one or more rotational differences between the patient’s current teeth and the planned treatment stage by comparing silhouettes of corresponding teeth of the one or more input 2D images to the one or more rendered 2D images; and outputting a difference indicator indicating the one or more rotational differences between the patient’s current teeth and the planned treatment stage. As can be seen the differences are “occlusal views” versus using “wide views” in the patent referenced therefore this is a variant of one another. As well as 3D images in the patent however, here one or more images would create a 3D image and is equivalent. As can be seen the differences are “occlusal views” versus using “wide views” in the patent referenced therefore this is a variant of one another. As well as 3D images in the patent however, here one or more images would create a 3D image and is equivalent. 13. A method, the method comprising: receiving an input two-dimensional (2D) image of a subject's current teeth comprising a wide angle occlusal view of the subject's upper and/or lower jaw at a current treatment stage; determining virtual camera parameters corresponding to the input 2D image; receiving a three-dimensional (3D) model of the subject's upper and/or lower jaw at a planned treatment stage; generating a rendered 2D image of the subject's teeth from the 3D model with the virtual camera parameters; determining translation differences between the subject's teeth from the input 2D image and the rendered 2D image using tooth centers; determining rotational differences between the subject's teeth from the input 2D image and the rendered 2D image using silhouettes of the subject's teeth; and outputting a difference indicator indicating the differences between the subject's current teeth and the planned treatment stage. 19. A non-transitory computing device readable medium having computer-program instructions stored thereon, the computer-program instructions comprising: receiving one or more input two-dimensional (2D) images of a patient’s current teeth taken by a camera device, the one or more input 2D images corresponding to one or more occlusal views of the patient’s current teeth of the patient’s upper and/or lower jaw in a current configuration; accessing one or more rendered 2D images representing target positions of the patient’s teeth at a planned treatment stage, wherein the one or more rendered 2D images are based on virtual camera parameters that correspond to the one or more input 2D images; determining one or more rotational differences between the patient’s current teeth and the planned treatment stage by comparing silhouettes of corresponding teeth of the one or more input 2D images to the one or more rendered 2D images; and outputting a difference indicator indicating the one or more rotational differences between the patient’s current teeth and the planned treatment stage. As can be seen the differences are “occlusal views” versus using “wide views” in the patent referenced therefore this is a variant of one another. As well as 3D images in the patent however, here one or more images would create a 3D image and is equivalent. As can be seen the differences are “occlusal views” versus using “wide views” in the patent referenced therefore this is a variant of one another. As well as 3D images in the patent however, here one or more images would create a 3D image and is equivalent. 14. A system, the system comprising: one or more processors; a camera; a wide angle lens; and memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory configured to store computer-program instructions, that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving an input two-dimensional (2D) image of a subject's current teeth comprising a wide angle occlusal view of the subject's upper and/or lower jaw at a current treatment stage; determining virtual camera parameters corresponding to the input 2D image; receiving a three-dimensional (3D) model of the subject's upper and/or lower jaw at a planned treatment stage; generating a rendered 2D image of the subject's teeth from the 3D model with the virtual camera parameters; determining differences between the subject's teeth from the input 2D image and the rendered 2D image using tooth centers; and outputting a difference indicator indicating the differences between the subject's current teeth and the planned treatment stage based on the difference between the subject's teeth from the input 2D image and the rendered 2D image. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowed as long as a terminal disclaimer gets filed as referenced above. Reasons for Allowance The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not teach the differences using teeth silhouettes in specific combinations with the rest of the claimed invention. There is rendering in Lancelle as used before and during care and the differences get singled out. However, they are not using rendering using the teeth’s silhouettes, that is more specific and not obvious to combine with another reference that is not related to predicting care via a camera at home. The key differences between the IDS submitted and the angle of the image and that the comparison is made using the silhouettes of the teeth. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTIAGO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5182. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm. 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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. /SANTIAGO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673 /SG/
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 12, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599912
Method for controlling and/or regulating the feed of material to be processed to a crushing and/or screening plant of a material processing device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598596
CHANNEL SELECTION BASED ON MULTI-HOP NEIGHBORING-ACCESS-POINT FEEDBACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587818
DEVICE AND ROLE BASED USER AUTHENTICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574708
COMMUNICATION FOR USER EQUIPMENT GROUPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574764
CLIENT COOPERATIVE TROUBLESHOOTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.8%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1015 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month