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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/21/2026, with respect to rejection of claim(s) 2-21, under 35 U.S.C 103, 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.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to rejection of claims 2-21, under 35 U.S.C 101, and claims objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of amendments. The rejection and objections of said claims has been withdrawn. Further, Applicant’s arguments, with respect to obviousness type double patenting rejection have been fully considered and rejection is being maintained in view of arguments.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16-17, and 19, of US Patent 12,064,310 B2 in view of Sachdeva (US PGPUB 2004/0002873 A1), as being described below .
Instant Application 18/771,087.
US Patent 12,064,310 B2
Claim 2. A method of digital treatment planning via an electronic device, the method comprising: receiving a three-dimensional model representative of a patient's teeth; determining, based on the three-dimensional model, a degree of malocclusion for each of a plurality of malocclusions of the patient's teeth including a first malocclusion and a second malocclusion; receiving treatment constraints for the patient's teeth; generating, using a clinical decision tree, the received treatment constraints, and the degree of malocclusion for teach of the plurality of malocclusions, a first plurality of treatment plans based on the received treatment constraints, wherein the clinical decision tree comprises at least two branched treatment plan options that include at least one of the received treatment constraints; generating, before initiating orthodontic treatment, a second plurality of modified treatment plans by modifying some of the first plurality of modified treatment plans to treat the second malocclusion; providing, to the electronic device, one or more of each of the first and second plurality of treatment plans to a dental professional for evaluation, the first and second treatment plans for moving the teeth from respective initial positions towards respective final positions; receiving a selection of a treatment plan from the dental professional among the one or more of each of the first and second plurality of treatment plans; and generating, on a display of the electronic device, a graphical representation of the selected treatment plan for display on the electronic device.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the graphical representation comprises a second three-dimensional model representative of a treatment outcome of the patient's teeth.
4. The method of claim 2, further comprising modifying the selected treatment plan.
5. The method of claim 2, wherein the first malocclusion comprises a molar malocclusion.
6. The method of claim 2, wherein the second malocclusion comprises a canine malocclusion.
7. The method of claim 2, wherein the treatment constraints comprises a selection of teeth not to be moved during orthodontic treatment.
8. The method of claim 2, wherein the treatment constraints comprises restricting interproximal reduction to certain teeth or groups of teeth.
9. The method of claim 2, wherein the second plurality of modified treatment plans comprises at least one treatment plan that does not treat the first malocclusion.
10. The method of claim 2, further comprising measuring relative positions of the patient's teeth on the three-dimensional model.
11. The method of claim 2, further comprising: generating a model of an appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan; and outputting instructions for fabricating the appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan based on the model of the appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan.
Claim 12.
13. The non-transitory computing device readable medium of claim 12, wherein the graphical representation comprises a second three-dimensional model representative of a treatment outcome of the patient's teeth.
14. The non-transitory computing device readable medium of claim 12, wherein the method further comprises modifying the selected treatment plan.
15. The non-transitory computing device readable medium of claim 12, wherein the first malocclusion comprises a molar malocclusion.
16. The non-transitory computing device readable medium of claim 12, wherein the second malocclusion comprises a canine malocclusion.
17. The non-transitory computing device readable medium of claim 12, wherein the treatment constraints comprises a selection of teeth not to be moved during orthodontic treatment.
18. The non-transitory computing device readable medium of claim 12, wherein the treatment constraints comprises restricting interproximal reduction to certain teeth or groups of teeth.
19. The non-transitory computing device readable medium of claim 12, wherein the second plurality of modified treatment plans comprises at least one treatment plan that does not treat the first malocclusion.
20. The non-transitory computing device readable medium of claim 12, further comprising measuring relative positions of the patient's teeth on the three-dimensional model.
21. The non-transitory computing device readable medium of claim 12, wherein the method further comprises: generating a model of an appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan; and outputting instructions for fabricating the appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan based on the model of the appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan.
Claim 1. A method of digital treatment planning via an electronic device, the method comprising: receiving a three-dimensional model representative of a patient's teeth; identifying, based on the three-dimensional model, a plurality of malocclusions of the patient's teeth including a first malocclusion and a second malocclusion; receiving treatment constraints for the patient's teeth; generating, using a clinical decision tree to accommodate the received treatment constraints, a first plurality of treatment plans based on the received treatment constraints, wherein the clinical decision tree comprises at least two branched treatment plan options that include at least one of the received treatment constraints and the three-dimensional model is validated against the at least two branched treatment plan options to select a treatment plan option of the at least two branched treatment plan options; generating a second plurality of treatment plans by modifying some of the first plurality of treatment plans to treat the first malocclusion; generating a third plurality of modified treatment plans by modifying some of the second plurality of modified treatment plans to treat the second malocclusion; providing one or more of the third plurality of modified treatment plans to a dental professional for evaluation; receiving a selection of a treatment plan from the dental professional among the one or more of the third plurality of modified treatment plans; and displaying a graphical representation of the selected treatment plan for display on the electronic device.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the graphical representation comprises a second three-dimensional model representative of a treatment outcome of the patient's teeth.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising modifying the selected treatment plan.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first malocclusion comprises a molar malocclusion.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the second malocclusion comprises a canine malocclusion.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the treatment constraints comprises a selection of teeth not to be moved during orthodontic treatment.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the treatment constraints comprises restricting interproximal reduction to certain teeth or groups of teeth.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the second plurality of modified treatment plans comprises at least one treatment plan that does not treat the first malocclusion.
16. The method of claim 1, further comprising measuring positions of the patient's teeth on the three-dimensional model.
17. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a model of an appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan; and outputting instructions for fabricating the appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan based on the model of the appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan.
Claim 19.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the graphical representation comprises a second three-dimensional model representative of a treatment outcome of the patient's teeth.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising modifying the selected treatment plan.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first malocclusion comprises a molar malocclusion.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the second malocclusion comprises a canine malocclusion.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the treatment constraints comprises a selection of teeth not to be moved during orthodontic treatment.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the treatment constraints comprises restricting interproximal reduction to certain teeth or groups of teeth.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the second plurality of modified treatment plans comprises at least one treatment plan that does not treat the first malocclusion.
16. The method of claim 1, further comprising measuring positions of the patient's teeth on the three-dimensional model.
17. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a model of an appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan; and outputting instructions for fabricating the appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan based on the model of the appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan.
As can be seen, patent 310 claims discloses all the claim limitations of instant application except generating, using a clinical decision tree before initiating orthodontic treatment, the received treatment constraints, and the degree of malocclusion, a treatment plan,
Sachdeva discloses generating, using a clinical decision tree before initiating orthodontic treatment, the received treatment constraints, and the degree of malocclusion, a treatment plan (Sachdeva, Fig. 1:10:12, and Fig. 2, shows a decision tree, which generates a treatment plan (step 60) before initiating orthodontic treatment and received treatment constraint (step 46-54), and also please see paragraphs 12, 24-25, 28, and 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify patent 310, teachings by generating a treatment plan to arrive at the claimed invention, as taught by Sachdeva.
The motivation would be to provide an improved scientific approach which maintains treatment costs, and provides a more consistent treatment time, especially with respect to automation of treatment plan generation (paragraph 11), as taught by Sachdeva
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 (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 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) 2-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (US PGPUB 2017/0100214 A1) and further in view of Miller (US PGPUB 2014/0193766 A1) and further in view of Sachdeva (US PGPUB 2004/0002873 A1).
As per claim 2, Wen discloses a method of digital treatment planning (Wen, Figs. 1A-9) via an electronic device (Wen, Fig. 8:250), the method comprising:
receiving a three-dimensional model representative of a patient's teeth (Wen, Fig. 1A:14:16, and paragraphs 139 and 142);
determining, based on the three-dimensional model, a degree of malocclusion for each of a plurality of malocclusions of the patient's teeth including a first malocclusion and a second malocclusion (Wen, paragraphs 25, 133, and 142-143);
receiving treatment constraints for the patient's teeth (Wen, Fig. 1A:18, and Fig. 1B:30, and paragraph 135);
generating, using a clinical decision tree, the received treatment constraints (Wen, Fig. 1B:32:34), and the degree of malocclusion for each of the plurality of malocclusions, a first plurality of treatment plans based on the received treatment constraints (Wen, Fig. 1B:34:40:46, and paragraphs 27 and 183), wherein the clinical decision tree comprises at least two branched treatment plan options that include at least one of the received treatment constraints (Wen, Fig. 1B:34:40);
generating, before initiating orthodontic treatment, a second plurality of treatment plans by modifying some of the first plurality of treatment plans to treat the second malocclusion (Wen, Fig. 2A:116, and paragraph 143);
providing, to the electronic device, one or more of each of the first and second plurality of treatment plans to a dental professional for evaluation (Wen, paragraphs 29, 136, 143 and 202), the first and second treatment plans for moving the teeth from respective initial positions towards respective final positions (Wen, paragraphs 24, 27, 135, 186, and 202);
generating, on a display of the electronic device, a graphical representation of the selected treatment plan for display on the electronic device (Wen, paragraphs 143, 174, and 202).
Although Wen discloses treatment plan selection however Wen does not explicitly disclose receiving a selection of a treatment plan from the dental professional among the one or more of each of the first and second plurality of treatment plans;
Miller discloses receiving a selection of a treatment plan from the dental professional among the one or more of each of the first and second plurality of treatment plans (Miller, paragraphs 88-89 and 91);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wen teachings by selecting a treatment plan, as taught by Miller.
The motivation would be to provide a system which greatly improves patient compliance, comfort, and satisfaction (paragraph 29), as taught by Miller.
Although Wen in view of Miller discloses generating, using a clinical decision tree, the received treatment constraints (Wen, Fig. 1B:32:34), and the degree of malocclusion for teach of the plurality of malocclusions, a first plurality of treatment plans based on the received treatment constraints (Wen, Fig. 1B:34:40:46, and paragraphs 27 and 183), however Wen in view of Miller does not explicitly disclose generating, using a clinical decision tree before initiating orthodontic treatment, the received treatment constraints, and the degree of malocclusion, a treatment plan,
Sachdeva discloses generating, using a clinical decision tree before initiating orthodontic treatment, the received treatment constraints, and the degree of malocclusion, a treatment plan (Sachdeva, Fig. 1:10:12, and Fig. 2, shows a decision tree, which generates a treatment plan (step 60) before initiating orthodontic treatment and received treatment constraint (step 46-54), and also please see paragraphs 12, 24-25, 28, and 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wen in view of Miller teachings by generating a treatment plan, as taught by Sachdeva.
The motivation would be to provide an improved scientific approach which maintains treatment costs, and provides a more consistent treatment time, especially with respect to automation of treatment plan generation (paragraph 11), as taught by Sachdeva.
As per claim 3, Wen in view of Miller in view of Sachdeva further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the graphical representation comprises a second three-dimensional model representative of a treatment outcome of the patient's teeth (Wen, paragraphs 144, 152 and 174).
As per claim 4, Wen in view of Miller in view of Sachdeva further discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising modifying the selected treatment plan (Miller, paragraphs 88 and 91).
As per claim 5, Wen in view of Miller in view of Sachdeva further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the first malocclusion comprises a molar malocclusion (Wen, paragraphs 194 and 244).
As per claim 6, Wen in view of Miller in view of Sachdeva further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the second malocclusion comprises a canine malocclusion (Miller, paragraph 18).
As per claim 7, Wen in view of Miller in view of Sachdeva further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the treatment constraints comprises a selection of teeth not to be moved during orthodontic treatment (Wen, paragraphs 29, 161, and 187).
As per claim 8, Wen in view of Miller in view of Sachdeva further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the treatment constraints comprises restricting interproximal reduction to certain teeth or groups of teeth (Wen, paragraphs 20 and 32).
As per claim 9, Wen in view of Miller in view of Sachdeva further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the second plurality of treatment plans comprises at least one treatment plan that does not treat the first malocclusion (Miller, paragraphs 69 and 71).
As per claim 10, Wen in view of Miller in view of Sachdeva further discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising measuring relative positions of the patient's teeth on the three-dimensional model (Wen, paragraph 152).
As per claim 11, Wen in view of Miller in view of Sachdeva further discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
generating a model of an appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan (Wen, paragraphs 152 and 154); and
outputting instructions for fabricating the appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan based on the model of the appliance for each stage of the selected treatment plan. (Wen, paragraphs 152 and 154)
As per claim 12, Wen discloses a non-transitory computing device readable medium storing instructions executable by a processor to cause a computing device to perform a method via an electronic device (Wen, Fig. 8:852, and paragraph 174), the method comprising:
For rest of claim limitations please see the analysis of claim 2.
As per claim 13, please see the analysis of claim 3.
As per claim 14, please see the analysis of claim 4.
As per claim 15, please see the analysis of claim 5.
As per claim 16, please see the analysis of claim 6.
As per claim 17, please see the analysis of claim 7.
As per claim 18, please see the analysis of claim 8.
As per claim 19, please see the analysis of claim 9.
As per claim 20, please see the analysis of claim 10.
As per claim 21, please see the analysis of claim 11.
Conclusion
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 SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights