Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/889,168

DENTAL APPLIANCE WITH REPOSITIONING JAW ELEMENTS

Non-Final OA §101§102§103
Filed
Sep 18, 2024
Examiner
NELSON, MATTHEW M
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Align Technology, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
497 granted / 860 resolved
-12.2% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
906
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
§112
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 860 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §103
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 . Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “jaw placements is great than a threshold” which appears to mean “jaw placements is greater than a threshold”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract steps of determining and designing that may all be performed in the mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no steps are provided for integrating into a practical application and the claimed invention does not provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no additional elements are provided. The parent applications positively recited a scanning step to acquire the model of a jaw, which would obviate this rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lotte (US 2003/0207224). Lotte shows a method of providing a dental treatment plan comprising identifying a misaligned jaw of a patient from a model of a jaw of a patient ([0033]-[0034] show acquiring/identifying the virtual image that requires a treatment plan for misalignment); identifying a plurality of jaw placements of the model of the jaw of the patient to reposition the jaws of the patient from a misaligned jaw position towards a corrected jaw position ([0049] discusses dividing into a plurality of jaw placements); determining tooth movement treatment stages to move teeth of the patient from an initial position towards a target position ([0035] discusses incremental movement of the teeth); determining, for each of the plurality of jaw placements, a corresponding plurality of the tooth movement treatment stages ([0035] discusses combining intra-arch tooth movement during inter-arch bite correction); designing a plurality of dental appliances for repositioning the jaws of the patient from the misaligned jaw position towards the corrected jaw position ([0049]) by: determining, for each of the jaw placements, a position and orientation of repositioning jaw elements for each of the corresponding plurality of the tooth movement treatment stages (“provided with wedges at incrementally different locations”; [0049]); positioning the repositioning jaw elements on dental appliances at the determined position and orientation for each of the corresponding plurality of treatment stages (Fig. 1A for instance shows the repositioning jaw elements in place on the aligner). With respect to claim 2, wherein a distance between a first and a second of the plurality of jaw placements is greater than a threshold jaw movement ([0049] discusses possible bite correction increments that may be considered the threshold). With respect to claim 3, wherein the threshold jaw movement is 2 mm or 3 mm ([0049] discusses at least 1 mm of additional bite correction to the previous correction and therefore overlaps this range). With respect to claim 4, wherein a distance between a first and second of the plurality of jaw placements is 3 mm or 4 mm ([0049] discusses at least 1 mm of additional bite correction to the previous correction and therefore overlaps this range). With respect to claim 5, wherein the corresponding plurality of the tooth movement treatment stages for each of the plurality of jaw placements is a range of tooth movement treatment stages, the range of tooth movement treatment stages being three stages, eight stages, or twelve stages ([0016] discusses the number of bite positioner wedge positions for achieving the bite correction may be as low as a singular stage, upon which the plurality of tooth positioning stages at these low stages will be greater and overlap the claimed range; [0035] provides an example of 1 to 40 steps for tooth movement, which would be divided by the jaw placement stages of one or two). With respect to claim 6, wherein the plurality of jaw placements includes two placements or three placements ([0016] discusses the number of bite positioner wedge positions for achieving the bite correction may be as low as a singular stage and therefore overlaps this range). With respect to claim 7, wherein the corresponding plurality of the tooth movement treatment stages for each of the plurality of jaw placements is a range of tooth movement treatment stages and each of the plurality of jaw placements is different for each of the range of tooth movement treatment stages (as cited above, the number of tooth movement treatment stages will be divided by the jaw placement stages during concurrent treatment). With respect to claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of the corresponding plurality of the tooth movement treatment stages is a predetermined period of time ([0049] discusses two to three weeks for each appliance). With respect to claim 9, wherein the predetermined period of time is two weeks ([0049] as cited above). With respect to claim 10, further comprising determining a degree of jaw alignment utilizing a virtual image of the patient’s jaw (“digital dental set” in [0015] for instance). With respect to claim 11, wherein designing a plurality of dental appliances further comprises designing a series of dental appliances to reposition jaw with the plurality of jaw placements over six months or eight months ([0031] establishes .2 mm to .8 mm of bite correction per month and therefore a patient requiring 1.2 to 4.8 mm of bite correction will be six months to 8 months). With respect to claim 12, wherein the dental appliances reposition the teeth of the patient in parallel with jaw repositioning ([0035] discusses combining intra-arch tooth movement during inter-arch bite correction). With respect to claim 14, wherein the repositioning jaw elements are occlusal repositioning jaw elements (Fig. 5K for instance). With respect to claim 15, wherein the repositioning jaw elements are positioned on buccal surfaces of the dental appliances (Fig. 1B for instance). Non-transitory computing device readable medium claims 16-20 are rejected similarly to the above and it is noted that Lotte is cited to perform the steps digitally) 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. Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotte. Lotte discloses the device as previously described above and shows concurrent treatment of bite and tooth position ([0035]), holding the bite constant while tooth position is altered ([0016]), and holding the tooth position constant while bite is altered ([0016]), but fails to show explicitly that wherein designing a plurality of dental appliances further comprises designing a series of dental appliances that reposition the teeth of the patient subsequent to jaw repositioning the jaw with the plurality of jaw placements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/design Lotte to perform the jaw/bite alignment and then the tooth positioning as this would have been obvious to try. A finite number of identified, predictable solutions consist of concurrent treatment, or one before the other. A reasonable expectation of success is present since Lotte already discloses tooth movement while bite is held constant, and that a bite may be altered without tooth movement (both described in [0016]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 18, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §103
Apr 03, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588968
DENTAL HANDPEICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12564481
PATIENT INDIVIDUAL PHYSICAL TRANSFER KEY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12551318
METHOD, SYSTEM AND MODEL FOR INDIRECT BONDING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12521216
CONNECTOR FOR A DENTAL VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12521209
METHODS OF SEPARATING OCCLUSAL SURFACES WITH REPOSITIONING JAW ELEMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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
58%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+28.6%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 860 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month