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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Amendments filed on July 29th, 2026
This action is made Final.
Applicants amended claims 1, 7, 13, 16 and 20.
Claims 1-20 are pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13-17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Christi (US PG PU# 2004/0110110 A1).
As for independent claim 1:
Chishti discloses the method comprising:
displaying, on a user interface, a first view of first and second models of a subject's dentition, wherein the first model shows an arrangement of the subject's dentition before receiving an orthodontic treatment, and the second model shows an arrangement of the subject's dentition subject to the orthodontic treatment, wherein the second model corresponds to either a final stage or an intermediate stage of the orthodontic treatment (0020, 0080, Chishti discloses a workstation having a user interface that display 3D graphical representation of the patient’s teeth along with orthodontic treatment plan. Chishti discloses IDDS and FDDS, initial digital data set, final digital data sets (initial arrangement, final arrangement), 0063, 0091);
displaying an occlusal view control on the user interface configured to switch the first view to a second view of the first and second models of the subject's dentition, wherein the second view shows occlusal surfaces of the subject's dentition, wherein one or more regions of inter-arch collisions are shown on the second view of the first and second models (0197, Chishti discloses that the clinician can snap the displayed image to any of several predefined viewing angles, and expressly identifies the occlusal view as one of the available views. 0186, Chishti discloses the selection in a three dimensional interactive graphical user interface that provides the user with instant and visual interaction with the displayed model components along with on screen control buttons and input components on the interface in 0198, 0199, see view program and VCR metaphor. 0130, 0135, Chishti discloses that the upper and lower arches are placed together and the meshing of the arches is visualized using a collision detection process to highlight the contacting points of the teeth in red. Chishti’s collision indicators are display property of the rendered tooth models (0130, 0135) and the view program concurrently renders both the initial and final models within the same interface (0191). Also, see the visual indicators and red highlights on a displayed image of the teeth to indicate collision points in 0135);
switching, in response to a user selecting the occlusal view control, the first view to the second view of the first and second models of the subject's dentition (0197 and 0191. Chishti discloses switch from the first view to the occlusal second view occurs in a direct response to the clinician’s selection user input of that predefined viewing angle, see initial image 2002 and final image 2004).
As for dependent claim 2:
Chishti discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first view of the first model is displayed adjacent to the first view of the second model (Chishti discloses that the GUI is configured to render the 3D graphical representations of multiple treatment-stage models and allow the user to view and compare different tooth arrangements 0018, 0020 and 0080).
As for dependent claim 3:
Chishti discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second view of the first model is displayed adjacent to the second view of the second model (Chishti's GUI allows simultaneous display of multiple 3D representations in 0080 and 0093).
As for dependent claim 4:
Chishti discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first view of each of the first and second models is a closed mouth view (Chishti, 0074, 0076, 0130, discloses 3d model of patient’s teeth with upper and lower arches placed together (closed, occluded) configuration and using wax bite scan).
As for dependent claim 5:
Chishti discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the orthodontic treatment is a first orthodontic treatment, the method further comprising displaying, on the user interface, a first view of a third model of the subject's dentition, wherein the third model shows an arrangement of the subject's dentition subject to a second orthodontic treatment that is different than the first orthodontic treatment (see FDDS outputs of Chishti in 0129 and IDDS in 0093; also see 0148-0149 different stages).
As for dependent claim 6:
Chishti discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the first view of the first, second and third models are viewable simultaneously on the user interface (Chishti shows multiple 3D tooth models in 0080, 0093 and 0150).
As for dependent claim 7:
Chishti discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the occlusal view control on the user interface includes an indicator indicating a status of the inter-arch collisions, wherein the indicator is viewable when the first view of each of the first and second models of the subject's dentition is displayed (Chishti, 0130, 0135, see collision points between upper and lower arches).
As for dependent claim 10:
Chishti discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising rotating, in response to the user selecting a rotate control on the user interface, the second view of each of the first and second models of the subject's dentition (Chishti, 0020, 0021, see rotating, manipulating, and viewing 3D models).
As for dependent claim 11:
Chishti discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the second views of each of the first and second models of the subject's dentition are rotated simultaneously (Chishti, 0020, 0021, see rotating, manipulating, and viewing 3D models, also see 0093).
As for independent claims 13 and 20:Claims 13 and 20 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claim 14:
Chishti discloses the system of claim 13, wherein one or both of the first and second models are three-dimensional (3D) models, the method further comprising modifying views of the 3D models in response to user adjustments including one or more of: a rotation, a zoom, and a pan (Chishti discloses manipulating 3D models and rendering 3D graphical representation in 0020, 0023).
As for dependent claim 15:
An Official notice is taken that switching dental view via a toggling graphical representation is well known in the art before the effective filing date. The limitation would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date to incorporate the togging thus render the following claim as obvious: wherein the method further comprises displaying only the first or second model in response to the user deselecting a multiple view button on the user interface.
As for dependent claim 16:
Chishti discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the first and second models correspond to the subject’s teeth of the subject’s upper and lower jaws (Chishti, 0074, 0076, see upper and lower teeth and wax bite scan).
As for dependent claim 17:Claim 17 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 2-3 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claim 19:
Chishti discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the method further comprises switching, in response to the user selecting an attachment view control on the user interface, the second view to an attachment view of each of the first and second models of the subject's dentition, wherein the attachment view shows one or more attachments positioned on each of the first and second models (Chishti discloses IDDS and FDDS along with manipulating 3D views in 0020, 0093, 0140. IDDS and FDDS are initial digital data set and final digital data set used for selecting and showing treatment stages see 0140, 0147-0151).
Claims 8, 9, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christi (US PG PU# 2004/0110110 A1) in view of Inglese (US PG PUB# 2017/0086955 A1).
As for dependent claim 8:
Chishti does not disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the status includes whether there are normal occlusal contacts or heavy inter-arch collisions present during the orthodontic treatment. Inglese discloses wherein the status includes whether there are normal occlusal contacts or heavy inter-arch collisions present during the orthodontic treatment in 0045, 0047. In the cited sections, Inglese discloses occlusion map is composed of color or grayscale surfaces with different values ranges for the pressure field distribution display in 0045, 0047. In the cited section, Inglese discloses the user selecting the generated occlusion mapping display and to show different occlusion conditions. Inglese also discloses pressure values using color or grayscales levels for legend. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Chishti to incorporate the teaching of Inglese displaying color-coded occlusion map projected onto occlusal surface of the virtual arch, thus allowing the system to provide a richer visualization that distinguishes normal occlusal contact (Inglese , 0045, 0047).
Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Chishti to incorporate the teaching of Inglese displaying color-coded occlusion map projected onto occlusal surface of the virtual arch, thus allowing the system to provide a richer visualization that distinguishes normal occlusal contact (Inglese , 0045, 0047)).
As for dependent claim 9:
Chishti – Inglese discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second view of each of the first and second models distinguishes between heavy inter-arch collisions and normal occlusal contacts (Inglese discloses occlusion map is composed of color or grayscale surfaces with different values ranges for the pressure field distribution display in 0045, 0047. Inglese shows lower contact magnitude and higher contact magnitude values. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Chishti to incorporate the teaching of Inglese displaying color-coded occlusion map projected onto occlusal surface of the virtual arch, thus allowing the system to provide a richer visualization that distinguishes normal occlusal contact (Inglese , 0045, 0047)).
As for dependent claim 12:
Chishti – Inglese discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second view of each of the first and second models distinguishes between heavy inter-arch collisions and normal occlusal contacts (Chishti discloses red highlighting for heavy collision points in 0130, 0135 and Inglese 0045-0047).
As for dependent claim 18:
Chishti – Inglese discloses the method system of claim 13, wherein regions of normal inter-arch contact and regions of high inter-arch contact are indicated with different colors in the second view (Inglese 0045-0047, Chishti discloses red highlighting for heavy collision points in 0130, 0135).
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Office refers applicants to MPEP 2123, where the MPEP 2123 states the entire reference is cited and specific cited sections of the reference are not limiting in any way. Any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be 'given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.' Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
Reference is made to MPEP 2144.01 - Implicit Disclosure
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
As for 35 USC 102 rejection:
As for independent claim 1:
Applicants assert that the combination of Chishti in view of Inglese does not suggest all the features recited in the claims. As amended, the claims recite, in part, displaying an occlusal view control on the user interface configured to switch the first view to a second view of the first and second models of the subject's dentition, wherein the second view shows occlusal surfaces of the subject's dentition; and switching in response to a user selecting the occlusal view control, the first view to the second view of the first and second models of the subject's dentition. Chishti and Inglese, either individually or in combination, do not suggest at least these features. Therefore, these references cannot be combined to suggest all the features recited in the claims, and the claims cannot be obvious in view of these references. (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg.1).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that the Applicants amended claim 1. As shown above, Chishti discloses
displaying, on a user interface, a first view of first and second models of a subject's dentition, wherein the first model shows an arrangement of the subject's dentition before receiving an orthodontic treatment, and the second model shows an arrangement of the subject's dentition subject to the orthodontic treatment, wherein the second model corresponds to either a final stage or an intermediate stage of the orthodontic treatment (0020, 0080, Chishti discloses a workstation having a user interface that display 3D graphical representation of the patient’s teeth along with orthodontic treatment plan. Chishti discloses IDDS and FDDS, initial digital data set, final digital data sets (initial arrangement, final arrangement), 0063, 0091);
displaying an occlusal view control on the user interface configured to switch the first view to a second view of the first and second models of the subject's dentition, wherein the second view shows occlusal surfaces of the subject's dentition, wherein one or more regions of inter-arch collisions are shown on the second view of the first and second models (0197, Chishti discloses that the clinician can snap the displayed image to any of several predefined viewing angles, and expressly identifies the occlusal view as one of the available views. 0186, Chishti discloses the selection in a three dimensional interactive graphical user interface that provides the user with instant and visual interaction with the displayed model components along with on screen control buttons and input components on the interface in 0198, 0199, see view program and VCR metaphor. 0130, 0135, Chishti discloses that the upper and lower arches are placed together and the meshing of the arches is visualized using a collision detection process to highlight the contacting points of the teeth in red. Chishti’s collision indicators are display property of the rendered tooth models (0130, 0135) and the view program concurrently renders both the initial and final models within the same interface (0191). Also, see the visual indicators and red highlights on a displayed image of the teeth to indicate collision points in 0135);
switching, in response to a user selecting the occlusal view control, the first view to the second view of the first and second models of the subject's dentition (0197 and 0191. Chishti discloses switch from the first view to the occlusal second view occurs in a direct response to the clinician’s selection user input of that predefined viewing angle, see initial image 2002 and final image 2004).
From the evidence shown above, Chishti discloses all the limitations in claim 1. At this time claim 1 is not in condition for an allowance.
Claims 13 and 20 contain substantial subject matter and the same rationale applies.
Although all claims are rejected in the instant Office Action as noted above, Applicant's attention is directed to disclosed information appearing in the Specification at Paragraphs 0102, 0115 and Figs. 6A-6C, see the occlus button indicator has three states: an empty indicator when there are no normal occlusal contacts or heavy inter-arch collisions, a green indicator when only normal occlusal contacts are present, and a red indicator when heavy inter-arch collisions are present. Paragraphs 0029, 0035, see calculating regions of inter-arch collision on the first 3D model and calculating regions of inter-arch collision on the second 3D model by an inter-arch collision calculator module. Paragraphs 0029 and 0087, see a user interface dial or slider allowing user selection of a threshold of contact degree differentiating normal contact from high contact. The Office also suggests clarifying the "indicator indicating a status of the inter-arch collisions" to emphasize the number of indicator states and the condition each state represents along with the user interface dial. The subject matter therein, if properly amended to incorporate such into independent claims 1, 13, and 20 would likely distinguish over the prior art of record as applied in the instant rejection of the claims. Applicants are advised to consider amendment of this matter in response to this Office Action to advance prosecution of the application.
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 DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 PM.
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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights