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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "includes the use" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "includes a use" and suggests amending.
Claims 2-12 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "includes the use" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "includes a use" and suggests amending.
Claims 14-20 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 12.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0151404 Wu et al., hereinafter “Wu”, in view of WO 2018/132912 SCURTESCU et al., hereinafter “Scurtescu”.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method of modifying an orthodontic treatment (Abstract and Figure 3, element 200), the method comprising: receiving one or more images of a patient’s teeth during a stage of the orthodontic treatment (Para 43; “After the last appliance in the set is administered to the patient, an image of the patient's teeth in their positions following administration of the first set of appliances can be taken (e.g., using scan techniques, impression techniques, etc.). From the image of the patient's teeth in their current position, an assessment can be made as to how the treatment is tracking relative to original treatment projections”), wherein the orthodontic treatment includes a use of a plurality of dental appliances each shaped to incrementally adjust a position of one or more of the patient’s teeth according to a treatment plan (Para 43-44; “initial staging of a patient's teeth is completed (e.g., modeling of a patient's initial, intermediate, and final teeth arrangements) and a treatment plan has been devised, a dental practitioner can be sent a set of one or more appliances to be administered to the patient in the first phase of treatment”); comparing a current virtual model of the patient’s teeth based on the one or more images to a target virtual model of the patient’s teeth (Para 43; “From the image of the patient's teeth in their current position, an assessment can be made as to how the treatment is tracking relative to original treatment projections”; determining that one or more of the patient’s teeth are off track based on one or more discrepancies between the current virtual model and the target virtual model (Para 43; “a substantial deviation from the planned treatment path “, “can be based on a revised or modified treatment plan when a determination is made that treatment is off track”); and modifying the treatment plan (Para 43; “can be based on a revised or modified treatment plan when a determination is made that treatment is off track”) and to put the one or more of the patient’s teeth on track according to the treatment plan (Para 43 and Figure 3, elements 206, 210, and 204 that lead to the final arrangement 208).
Wu does not disclose modifying the treatment plan by implementing local energy radiation to a region of the patient’s dental arch, wherein the local energy radiation is configured to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth.
However, Scurtescu discloses radiation during orthodontic treatment performed with aligners (Para 4 and 89) and teaches modifying the treatment plan by implementing local energy radiation to a region of the patient’s dental arch, wherein the local energy radiation is configured to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Para 103 discloses “tracking” and how the ultrasound device is used to accelerate bone remodeling for slow tooth movement “more probable completion of the tooth movement within the time of a tray usage interval”, see further Para 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed implementing local energy radiation as taught by Scurtescu, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Scurtescu; Para 103).
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses modifying the treatment plan includes modifying a subsequent stage of the treatment plan (Para 43; “Treatment then progresses to the next phase, where … a subsequent set of appliances can be sent to the practitioner for administration to the patient. The subsequent set of appliances … can be based on a revised or modified treatment plan when a determination is made that treatment is off track”).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses applying a repositioning force on the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Para 60).
Wu does not disclose applying a repositioning force on the one or more of the patient’s teeth as the local energy radiation is applied to the region of the patient’s dental arch.
However, Scurtescu teaches applying a repositioning force on the one or more of the patient’s teeth as the local energy radiation is applied to the region of the patient’s dental arch (Para 20; ultrasound is applied while the aligner is configured to move the at least one tooth; i.e. applying force, see Para 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed implementing local energy radiation as taught by Scurtescu, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Scurtescu; Para 103).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses modifying the treatment plan includes using a subsequent dental appliance of the plurality of dental appliances corresponding to a subsequent stage of the treatment plan (Para 43).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses the subsequent dental appliance is configured to apply force on the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Para 60).
Wu does not disclose the subsequent dental appliance is configured to apply force on the one or more of the patient’s teeth as the local energy radiation is applied to the one or more of the patient’s teeth.
However, Scurtescu teaches the subsequent dental appliance is configured to apply force on the one or more of the patient’s teeth as the local energy radiation is applied to the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Para 20; ultrasound is applied while the aligner is configured to move the at least one tooth; i.e. applying force, see Para 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed implementing local energy radiation as taught by Scurtescu, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Scurtescu; Para 103).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses the subsequent dental appliance includes a polymer shell having one or more cavities that are shaped to receive the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Para 50).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wu does not disclose the local energy radiation is implemented using an external processor.
However, Scurtescu teaches the local energy radiation is implemented using an external processor (Para 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed an external processor as taught by Scurtescu, in the invention of Wu, in order to control the radiation device externally (Scurtescu; Para 60-61).
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wu does not disclose the local energy radiation is emitted from one or more of the following: a heating element, a light emitting element, a radio frequency transducer, and an ultrasound transducer.
However, Scurtescu teaches the local energy radiation is emitted from one or more of the following: a heating element, a light emitting element, a radio frequency transducer, and an ultrasound transducer (Para 66; ultrasound transducer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed an ultrasound transducer as taught by Scurtescu, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Scurtescu; Para 103).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wu does not disclose the local energy radiation has a predetermined dose for interacting with tissue associated with the one or more of the patient’s teeth for put the one or more of the patient’s teeth on track.
However, Scurtescu teaches the local energy radiation has a predetermined dose for interacting with tissue associated with the one or more of the patient’s teeth for put the one or more of the patient’s teeth on track (Para 71, 73-75, Para 86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed implementing local energy radiation as taught by Scurtescu, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Scurtescu; Para 103).
Regarding claim 12, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wu does not disclose the local energy radiation is only applied to the region of the patient’s dental arch for repositioning the one or more of the patient’s teeth.
However, Scurtescu teaches the local energy radiation is only applied to the region of the patient’s dental arch for repositioning the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Para 90 and 94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed implementing local energy radiation as taught by Scurtescu, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Scurtescu; Para 103).
Regarding claim 13, Wu discloses a method of modifying an orthodontic treatment (Abstract and Figure 3, element 200), the method comprising: receiving one or more images of a patient’s teeth during a stage of the orthodontic treatment (Para 43; “After the last appliance in the set is administered to the patient, an image of the patient's teeth in their positions following administration of the first set of appliances can be taken (e.g., using scan techniques, impression techniques, etc.). From the image of the patient's teeth in their current position, an assessment can be made as to how the treatment is tracking relative to original treatment projections”), wherein the orthodontic treatment includes a use of a plurality of dental appliances each shaped to incrementally adjust a position of one or more of the patient’s teeth according to a treatment plan (Para 43-44; “initial staging of a patient's teeth is completed (e.g., modeling of a patient's initial, intermediate, and final teeth arrangements) and a treatment plan has been devised, a dental practitioner can be sent a set of one or more appliances to be administered to the patient in the first phase of treatment”); comparing a current virtual model of the patient’s teeth based on the one or more images to a target virtual model of the patient’s teeth (Para 43; “From the image of the patient's teeth in their current position, an assessment can be made as to how the treatment is tracking relative to original treatment projections”; determining that one or more of the patient’s teeth are off track based on one or more discrepancies between the current virtual model and the target virtual model (Para 43; “a substantial deviation from the planned treatment path “, “can be based on a revised or modified treatment plan when a determination is made that treatment is off track”);
and modifying a subsequent stage of the treatment plan (Para 43; “can be based on a revised or modified treatment plan when a determination is made that treatment is off track”) using a subsequent dental appliance of the plurality of dental appliances that correspond to the subsequent stage of the treatment plan (Para 43), to put the one or more of the patient’s teeth on track according to the treatment plan (Para 43 and Figure 3, elements 206, 210, and 204 that lead to the final arrangement 208).
Wu does not disclose modifying a subsequent stage of the treatment plan by implementing local energy radiation to a region of the patient’s dental wherein the local energy radiation is configured to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth and to put the one or more of the patient’s teeth on track according to the treatment plan.
However, Scurtescu discloses radiation during orthodontic treatment performed with aligners (Para 4 and 89) and teaches modifying a subsequent stage of the treatment plan by implementing local energy radiation to a region of the patient’s dental wherein the local energy radiation is configured to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth and to put the one or more of the patient’s teeth on track according to the treatment plan (Para 103 discloses “tracking” and how the ultrasound device is used to accelerate bone remodeling for slow tooth movement “more probable completion of the tooth movement within the time of a tray usage interval”, see further Para 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed implementing local energy radiation as taught by Scurtescu, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Scurtescu; Para 103).
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses the subsequent dental appliance is configured to apply a repositioning force on the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Para 43 and 60).
Wu does not disclose the subsequent dental appliance is configured to apply a repositioning force on the one or more of the patient’s teeth as the local energy radiation is applied to the region of the patient’s dental arch.
However, Scurtescu teaches the subsequent dental appliance is configured to apply a repositioning force on the one or more of the patient’s teeth as the local energy radiation is applied to the region of the patient’s dental arch (Para 20; ultrasound is applied while the aligner is configured to move the at least one tooth; i.e. applying force, see Para 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed implementing local energy radiation as taught by Scurtescu, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Scurtescu; Para 103).
Regarding claim 16, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Wu does not disclose implementing the local energy radiation to the region of the patient’s dental arch includes limiting an amount of energy applied to the region of the patient’s dental arch to prevent damage to tissue.
However, Scurtescu teaches implementing the local energy radiation to the region of the patient’s dental arch includes limiting an amount of energy applied to the region of the patient’s dental arch to prevent damage to tissue (Para 74; also note that “to prevent” is an intended use limitation that needs not be taught, examiner suggests positively reciting this limitation using “configured to” language”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed implementing local energy radiation as taught by Scurtescu, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Scurtescu; Para 103).
Regarding claim 18, Wu discloses the subsequent dental appliance (Para 43).
Wu does not disclose to prevent the local energy radiation from being emitted from regions adjacent to the region of the patient’s dental arch.
However, Scurtescu teaches to prevent the local energy radiation from being emitted from regions adjacent to the region of the patient’s dental arch (Para 90 and 94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed implementing local energy radiation as taught by Scurtescu, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate repositioning of the one or more of the patient’s teeth (Scurtescu; Para 103).
Claim(s) 5, 8, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0151404 Wu et al., hereinafter “Wu”, in view of WO 2018/132912 SCURTESCU et al., hereinafter “Scurtescu”, further in view of US 2018/0177570 Alauddin et al., hereinafter “Alauddin”.
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Wu does not disclose the local energy radiation is emitted from one or more emitters of the subsequent dental appliance.
However, Alauddin discloses a light assisted orthodontic device (Abstract) and teaches the local energy radiation is emitted from one or more emitters of the subsequent dental appliance (Para 43; “A series of aligners may be made according to the same process. Each aligner is worn by the patient as determined by the dental practitioner, generally two weeks prior to being replaced by the next aligner in the sequence”; Figure 1, element 10 is the aligner with diodes 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed energy radiation is emitted from one or more emitters of the subsequent dental appliance as taught by Alauddin, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate the bone remodeling process and reduce overall treatment time (Alauddin; Para 28).
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Wu does not disclose the subsequent dental appliance includes a controller that controls implementation of the local energy radiation to the region of the patient’s dental arch.
However, Alauddin teaches the subsequent dental appliance includes a controller that controls implementation of the local energy radiation to the region of the patient’s dental arch (Para 43 discloses the series of aligners; Para 30, and 40-41; the optoelectronic device acts as a controller to detect and control light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed energy radiation is emitted from one or more emitters of the subsequent dental appliance as taught by Alauddin, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate the bone remodeling process and reduce overall treatment time (Alauddin; Para 28).
Regarding claim 15, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Wu does not disclose implementing the local energy radiation to the region of the patient’s dental arch includes increasing a dose of energy that was previously determined to be applied to the region of the patient’s dental arch.
However, Alauddin teaches implementing the local energy radiation to the region of the patient’s dental arch includes increasing a dose of energy that was previously determined to be applied to the region of the patient’s dental arch (Para 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed increasing dose of energy as taught by Alauddin, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate the bone remodeling process and reduce overall treatment time (Alauddin; Para 28).
Regarding claim 17, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Wu does not disclose the local energy radiation is emitted from one or more emitters of the subsequent dental appliance.
However, Alauddin discloses a light assisted orthodontic device (Abstract) and teaches the local energy radiation is emitted from one or more emitters of the subsequent dental appliance (Para 43; “A series of aligners may be made according to the same process. Each aligner is worn by the patient as determined by the dental practitioner, generally two weeks prior to being replaced by the next aligner in the sequence”; Figure 1, element 10 is the aligner with diodes 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed energy radiation is emitted from one or more emitters of the subsequent dental appliance as taught by Alauddin, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate the bone remodeling process and reduce overall treatment time (Alauddin; Para 28).
Regarding claim 19, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Wu does not disclose the subsequent dental appliance includes a controller that controls implementation of the local energy radiation to the region of the patient’s dental arch.
However, Alauddin teaches the subsequent dental appliance includes a controller that controls implementation of the local energy radiation to the region of the patient’s dental arch (Para 43 discloses the series of aligners; Para 30, and 40-41; the optoelectronic device acts as a controller to detect and control light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed energy radiation is emitted from one or more emitters of the subsequent dental appliance as taught by Alauddin, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate the bone remodeling process and reduce overall treatment time (Alauddin; Para 28).
Regarding claim 20, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Wu does not disclose implementing the local energy radiation to the region of the patient’s dental arch includes regulating a duration of the local energy radiation applied to the region of the patient’s dental arch.
However, Alauddin teaches implementing the local energy radiation to the region of the patient’s dental arch includes regulating a duration of the local energy radiation applied to the region of the patient’s dental arch (Para 47; “Practical reasons may restrict the use of the device to nighttime use, although the treatment acceleration may be accomplished in the approximately eight hours that the tray 100 is worn nightly”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed restricted durations as taught by Alauddin, in the invention of Wu, in order to accelerate the bone remodeling process during nighttime only (Alauddin; Para 47).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYA ZIAD BAKKAR whose telephone number is (313)446-6659. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm M-Th.
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, Carl Layno can be reached on (571) 272-4949. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/AYA ZIAD BAKKAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights