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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 9, 2026 is considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 20 be found allowable, claim 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). It is noted that claims 20 and 22 are duplicates of each other, while it is noted that claim 22 does depend from claim 21, claim 21 is a duplicate of claim 19 from which claim 20 depends from.
Claims 19 and 21 objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of the claims “wherein said a bracket” is believed to be in error for -wherein said bracket-. 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 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a computer system and a method (which uses the computer system, i.e. is digital). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons outlined below:
According to section 2106 of the MPEP the claims are analyzed below for determining patent eligibility.
Step 1: In regards to claims 1-8 and 18-22, the claims are directed towards “A computer system” that claims a processor. The claimed computer system is within the 35 U.S.C. 101 statutory category of a machine (MPEP 2106.03), but falls into the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04). In regards to claims 9-15 and 17, the claims are directed towards “a method of correcting malocclusion of teeth” including the steps of acquiring data and processing it. The claimed “method” is within the 35 U.S.C. 101 statutory category of a process (MPEP 2106.03) but falls into the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2A: In regards to claim 1-8 and 18-22, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05). The claimed system is directed towards a general-purpose computer including a processor and memory that is programed to carryout a method including capturing images on a generic optical device. In regards to claims 9-15 and 17, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05). The claimed method, including the method carried out by the computer system, is directed to a mental process, concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, and judgements. More particularity, the functions of “utilizing an optical device”, “converting capture images of a dental arch”, “presenting said virtual dental arch…on a display”, “segregating each of said plurality of teeth”, “independently moving each of said plurality of virtual teeth”, “generating a bracket prescription” and “selecting a bracket” are all capable of being performed mentally by the dental practitioner or simply with a piece of paper or pencil. Such that the dentist is capable of capturing an image (i.e. by looking at the teeth and remembering them or drawing them on paper), presenting them on a display (i.e. drawing them), independently moving each tooth (create a new drawing and move each tooth), generate a bracket prescription (based on their knowledge determine a prescription to move the teeth to the moved position) and selecting a bracket (based on their experience and the determined prescription, select a backet to move the teeth). It is noted that the new limitations directed towards an optical device are not substantially more as the limitations are directed towards a generic optical device for capturing an image and are therefore, not significantly more than the judicial exception. It is further noted that dentists have long practiced their trade/art of determining mentally orthodontic treatments, such as where to bond the brackets and what brackets to use, well before computer and are most certainly capable of envisioning and mentally determining the desired orthodontic treatment to accomplish the desired outcome of the orthodontic treatment.
Step 2B: In regards to the claims, the claimed steps are all algorithms capable of being performed mentally and represents nothing more than concepts related to performing mathematical calculations which falls within the judicial exception. Implied in the claims, is the use of a general-purpose computer or data processing device (such as the system of claim 1) and imaging device, however, there is no disclosure in the written description that the processing unit and optical device is anything more than a generic component, nor is there any disclosure that the method improves the manner in which the processing unit and optical device operates. The mere recitation in the claims of a generic data processing method and associated general purpose computer being used in a conventional manner to perform conventional computer functions that are well understood and routine does not amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. The claims do not go beyond “determining” and “calculating” numerical values based on mathematical algorithms with a general-purpose computer. The claims further do not require that the method transforms a particular article. The claimed system and method fall with the judicial exception to patent eligible subject matter of an abstract idea without significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
It is noted that claim 16 is eligible as it claimed the method further comprising steps carried out on the teeth including bonding the bracket to the tooth.
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 20 and 22 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.
The limitations including “selecting a bracket corresponding to said bracket prescription associated with each of said plurality of teeth from a plurality of brackets or moving a bracket on said tooth corresponding to said at least on virtual tooth.” is unclear. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as further limiting the step of selecting a bracket in each of the independent claims to include that the bracket is selected from a plurality of brackets, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify. It is noted that since a bracket is selected as claimed, the limitation of “moving a bracket” is unclear such as it is unclear what bracket is being moved as to if it is the selected bracket or a different bracket. Since the claim recited the limitations in the alternative, the alternative of selecting the bracket from a plurality of brackets in being used as the required limitation that the prior art needs to teach.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 appears to have the same limitations as claim 19 form which is depends from, therefore, it does not further limit. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-15, 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cinader, JR. (2010/0260405) in view of Cosse (2015/0305831).
With respect to claim 1, Cinader teaches a computer system comprising a processor communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory containing a computer program executable to (see pars. 31, 82-83) capture images of a dental arch including a plurality of teeth fitted with existing braces including brackets interconnected by an existing archwire utilizing an optical device (see pars. 45, 47, such that an image of the dental arch with brackets and an interconnected wire is captured since the second image is captured after the treatment has already started), convert the images of the dental arch including the plurality of teeth fitted with existing braces including brackets interconnected with the existing archwire into a virtual dental arch including a plurality of virtual teeth fitted with virtual braces including virtual brackets interconnected by a virtual archwire (see pars. 9, 45-47, 49, 54, 72), present the virtual dental arch including the plurality of virtual teeth fitted with the virtual braces including virtual brackets interconnected by the virtual archwire on a display surface of a display device (see par. 31). Cinader teaches after the images are captured, the images are used and registered with a different image to display a third image of the teeth in the second arrangement, which is the arrangement of the teeth after treatment has begun, such that it is image of the teeth with the brackets and wire (see pars. 45, 47, 72) and if the two images are within acceptable limits, proceeding with the orthodontic treatment (see par. 75). Such that it is noted that Cinader teaches proceeding with the orthodontic treatment includes restarting the process from block 104 (see par. 75). Therefore, Cinader further teaches segregating each of the plurality of virtual teeth in the virtual dental arch to allow independent movement of each of the plurality of virtual teeth in the virtual dental arch (see par. 40), independently removing virtual brackets and a virtual archwire from at least one virtual tooth of the plurality of virtual teeth (see par. 40, such that the modeling software manipulates each bracket and each tooth as a separate object and further the archwire is separate as it is simulated separately, such that each object can be added or removed as desired). Cinader does not specifically teach that the computer program is executable such that the images of the dental arch including the plurality of teeth fitted with existing braces including brackets interconnected by the existing braces is segregated to allow independent movement of each of the plurality of virtual teeth in the virtual dental arch and independently removing at least one of the virtual brackets and the virtual archwire from at least one virtual tooth of the plurality of virtual teeth. However, Cinader does teach the image obtained with the brackets and archwire can be used for treatment planning (see par. 73), such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teaching of Cinader, which teaches the third image (which is the image including the brackets and archwire) to be segregated to allow for independent movement of the plurality of teeth and to allow for independent removal of the virtual brackets and archwire as taught by Cinader in a different step (i.e. different image from step 104, see par. 40) in order to reduce the number of images that are need to be obtained when proceeding with orthodontic treatment in step 114. Such that the image used in step 118/120 can be used for treatment planning when restarting the process in step 104. In view of the modification above, Cinader further teaches moving said at least one virtual tooth within said virtual dental arch from an initial position in said virtual dental arch to a final position in said virtual dental arch (see par. 40), generate a bracket prescription associated with each of the at least one virtual teeth within said dental arch abased on movement of each of the at least one virtual tooth from said initial position in said virtual dental arch to said final position in said virtual dental arch and select a bracket corresponding to said bracket prescription associated with said at least one virtual tooth (see par. 40-42, 45, such that a bracket prescription is determined based on the final satisfied position which is then used to proceed with treatment). Cinader teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the bracket prescription is selected in relation to the virtual archwire associated with the at least one tooth.
Cosse teaches a system using digital images (see par. 60) and comprising existing braces including brackets interconnected by an existing archwire, removing the archwire and generating a bracket prescription associated with at least on tooth within the dental arch based on desired movement of the tooth to from an initial position to a final position in the dental arch in relation to the archwire associated with the at least one tooth (see pars. 4, 6, specifically relocation of the same archwire with respect to a different location of a bracket, pars. 11, 33, 63, 65, 66, 79, specifically that the same archwire is used in the second position, such that the changed bracket prescription (par. 65), par. 102 regarding the prescription being related to the archwire, see fig, 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify system of Cinader to generate the bracket prescription based in relation to the virtual archwire (i.e. the archwire already being used) in order to deliver the desired forces to the teeth to achieve the desired final position while saving time and materials. Such that the archwire does not need to be replaced with a new/different one which saves on material and time in that the archwire does not need to be changed or modified.
With respect to claim 2, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching the computer program further executable to present said virtual dental arch including a plurality of virtual teeth as one or more views selected from the group consisting of an occlusal maxillary view, a maxillary vertical facial view, a maxillary vertical lingual view, an occlusal mandibular view, a mandibular vertical facial view, and a mandibular vertical lingual view (see pars. 47, 72, such that the image is rotatable so that it can be viewed in any of the claimed orientations).
With respect to claim 3, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching wherein the computer program further executable to receive user interactions associated with each of the plurality of virtual teeth presented in the virtual dental arch to directly move each of the plurality of teeth from the initial position in the virtual dental arch to the final position in the virtual dental arch (see par. 42).
With respect to claim 4, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching the computer program further executable to receive user interaction to operate one or more tooth positioning control elements to move each of the plurality of virtual teeth from said initial positioned in the virtual dental arch to said final position in the virtual dental arch (see par. 42, such that the user directly moves the teeth using the software, therefore, there is a tooth positioning control element).
With respect to claim 5, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching wherein movement of each of the plurality of virtual teeth is selected from one or more of the group consisting of lingual-buccal, mesial-distal, extrusion-intrusion, tipping, rotation, and torque (see par. 77-78, such that the tooth is at least rotated). Cosse further teaches tooth movement including tipping, rotation and torque (see pars. 4-5, 34). It is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the translation and rotation movement of the tooth to include torque, tip and rotational movement as taught by Cosse in order to achieve the desired final orientation of the tooth.
With respect to claim 6, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching wherein said computer program further executable to identify a bracket bonding location on each of the plurality of virtual teeth in said virtual dental arch based on said bracket selected and movement of each of said plurality of virtual teeth form said initial position to said final position in said virtual dental arch (see pars. 40-42).
With respect to claim 7, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching wherein said computer program further executable to present said virtual dental arch based on said final position of said plurality of teeth in said virtual dental arch (see pars. 31, 40-41).
With respect to claim 8, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching wherein the computer program further executable to generate a bonding jig specification to fabricate a bonding jig to hold the bracket selected for each of the plurality of teeth in the dental arch, wherein the bonding jig holding said bracket selected for each of the plurality of teeth in said dental arch when engaged with the dental arch disposes the bracket selected for each of said plurality of teeth at said a bracket bonding location on each of the plurality of teeth in said dental arch (see par. 42).
With respect to claim 9, Cinader teaches a method of correcting malocclusion of teeth comprising utilizing an optical device to create captured images of a dental arch including a plurality of teeth fitted with existing braces including brackets interconnected by existing archwire (see pars. 45, 47, such that an image of the dental arch with brackets and an interconnected wire is captured since the second image is captured after the treatment has already started), converting the captured images of the dental arch including the plurality of teeth fitted with existing braces including brackets interconnected with the existing archwire into a virtual dental arch including a plurality of virtual teeth fitted with virtual braces including virtual brackets interconnected by a virtual archwire (see pars. 9, 45-47, 49, 54, 72), presenting the virtual dental arch including the plurality of virtual teeth fitted with the virtual braces including virtual brackets interconnected by the virtual archwire on a display surface of a display device (see par. 31). Cinader teaches after the images are captured, the images are used and registered with a different image to display a third image of the teeth in the second arrangement, which is the arrangement of the teeth after treatment has begun, such that it is image of the teeth with the brackets and wire (see pars. 45, 47, 72) and if the two images are within acceptable limits, proceeding with the orthodontic treatment (see par. 75). Such that it is noted that Cinader teaches proceeding with the orthodontic treatment includes restarting the process from block 104 (see par. 75). Therefore, Cinader further teaches segregating each of the plurality of virtual teeth in the virtual dental arch to allow independent movement of each of the plurality of virtual teeth in the virtual dental arch (see par. 40), independently removing virtual brackets and a virtual archwire from at least one virtual tooth of the plurality of virtual teeth (see par. 40, such that the modeling software manipulates each bracket and each tooth as a separate object and further the archwire is separate as it is simulated separately, such that each object can be added or removed as desired). Cinader does not specifically teach that that the images of the dental arch including the plurality of teeth fitted with existing braces including brackets interconnected by the existing braces is segregated to allow independent movement of each of the plurality of virtual teeth in the virtual dental arch and independently removing at least one of the virtual brackets and the virtual archwire from at least one virtual tooth of the plurality of virtual teeth. However, Cinader does teach the image obtained with the brackets and archwire can be used for treatment planning (see par. 73), such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teaching of Cinader, which teaches the third image (which is the image including the brackets and archwire) to be segregated to allow for independent movement of the plurality of teeth and to allow for independent removal of the virtual brackets and archwire as taught by Cinader in a different step (i.e. different image from step 104, see par. 40) in order to reduce the number of images that are need to be obtained when proceeding with orthodontic treatment in step 114. Such that the image used in step 118/120 can be used for treatment planning when restarting the process in step 104. In view of the modification above, Cinader further teaches moving said at least one virtual tooth within said virtual dental arch from an initial position in said virtual dental arch to a final position in said virtual dental arch (see par. 40), generate a bracket prescription associated with each of the at least one virtual teeth within said dental arch abased on movement of each of the at least one virtual tooth from said initial position in said virtual dental arch to said final position in said virtual dental arch and select a bracket corresponding to said bracket prescription associated with said at least one virtual tooth (see par. 40-42, 45, such that a bracket prescription is determined based on the final satisfied position which is then used to proceed with treatment). Cinader teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the bracket prescription is selected in relation to the virtual archwire associated with the at least one tooth.
Cosse teaches a method for correcting malocclusion of teeth comprising existing braces including brackets interconnected by an existing archwire, removing the archwire and generating a bracket prescription associated with at least on tooth within the dental arch based on desired movement of the tooth to from an initial position to a final position in the dental arch in relation to the archwire associated with the at least one tooth (see pars. 4, 6, specifically relocation of the same archwire with respect to a different location of a bracket, pars. 11, 33, 63, 65, 66, 79, specifically that the same archwire is used in the second position, such that the changed bracket prescription (par. 65), par. 102 regarding the prescription being related to the archwire, see fig, 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify system of Cinader to generate the bracket prescription based in relation to the virtual archwire (i.e. the archwire already being used) in order to deliver the desired forces to the teeth to achieve the desired final position while saving time and materials. Such that the archwire does not need to be replaced with a new/different one which saves on material and also time in that the archwire does not need to be changed or modified.
With respect to claim 10, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching presenting said virtual dental arch including a plurality of virtual teeth as one or more views selected from the group consisting of an occlusal maxillary view, a maxillary vertical facial view, a maxillary vertical lingual view, an occlusal mandibular view, a mandibular vertical facial view, and a mandibular vertical lingual view (see pars. 47, 72, such that the image is rotatable so that it can be viewed in any of the claimed orientations).
With respect to claim 11, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching receiving user interactions associated with each of the plurality of virtual teeth presented in the virtual dental arch to directly move each of the plurality of teeth from the initial position in the virtual dental arch to the final position in the virtual dental arch (see par. 42).
With respect to claim 12, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching receiving user interaction to operate one or more tooth positioning control elements to move each of the plurality of virtual teeth from said initial positioned in the virtual dental arch to said final position in the virtual dental arch (see par. 42, such that the user directly moves the teeth using the software, therefore, there is a tooth positioning control element).
With respect to claim 13, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching wherein movement of each of the plurality of virtual teeth is selected from one or more of the group consisting of lingual-buccal, mesial-distal, extrusion-intrusion, tipping, rotation, and torque (see par. 77-78, such that the tooth is at least rotated). Cosse further teaches tooth movement including tipping, rotation and torque (see pars. 4-5, 34). It is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the translation and rotation movement of the tooth to include torque, tip and rotational movement as taught by Cosse in order to achieve the desired final orientation of the tooth.
With respect to claim 14, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching identifying a bracket bonding location on each of the plurality of virtual teeth in said virtual dental arch based on said bracket selected and movement of each of said plurality of virtual teeth form said initial position to said final position in said virtual dental arch (see pars. 40-42).
With respect to claim 15, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching presenting said virtual dental arch based on said final position of said plurality of teeth in said virtual dental arch (see pars. 31, 40-41).
With respect to claims 17-18, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teaching generating a bracket prescription includes wherein the bracket prescription is based on at least one of a bracket selection module and a bracket bonding location module (see pars. 40-42).
With respect to claims 19 and 21, Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cosse further teaching wherein said bracket prescription associated with said at least one tooth from said initial position in said dental arch to said final position in said dental arch in relation to said archwire associated with said at least one tooth (see pars. 4, 6, specifically relocation of the same archwire with respect to a different location of a bracket, pars. 11, 33, 63, 65, 66, 79, specifically that the same archwire is used in the second position, such that the changed bracket prescription (par. 65), par. 102 regarding the prescription being related to the archwire, see fig, 17).
With respect to claims 20 and 22 Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader further teach wherein selecting a bracket corresponding to said bracket prescription associated with each of said plurality of teeth from a plurality of brackets (see par. 42).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cinader, JR. (2010/0260405) in view of Cosse (2015/0305831) as applied to claims 7 and 9 above, and further in view of Schulhof et al. (2016/0346064).
Cinader/Cosse teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Cinader teaching the use of a bonding jig (see par. 42), however, does not specifically teach the specifics of the bonding jig.
Cinader ‘021 teaches a computer program and method for correcting malocclusions wherein a bracket and wire system are designed to move the teeth from a first position to a final position (see par. 7).
With respect to claim 8, Schulhof further teaches wherein said computer program further executable to generate a bonding jig specification to fabricate a bonding jig to hold said bracket selected for each of said plurality of teeth in said dental arch, wherein said bonding jig holding said bracket selected for each of said plurality of teeth in said dental arch when engaged with said dental arch disposes said bracket selected for each of said plurality of teeth at said a bracket bonding location on each of said plurality of teeth in said dental arch (see abstract, pars. 15, 30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the computer system of Cinader/Cosse to including the system to generate a bonding jig as taught by Schulhof in order to ensure the brackets will be placed in the proper position on the teeth as designed in order to ensure the desired orthodontic treatment outcome.
Schulhof teaches a method for correcting malocclusion of teeth comprising converting captured images of a dental arch including a plurality of teeth into a virtual dental arch including a plurality of virtual teeth (par. 42), generating a bracket prescription associated with each of the plurality of teeth within the dental arch based on movement of each of the plurality of virtual teeth from said initial position in said virtual dental arch to said final position in said virtual dental arch (par. 43) and selecting a bracket corresponding to the bracket prescription associated with each of said plurality of teeth from a plurality of brackets (par. 43).
With respect to claim 16, Schulhof further teaches generating a bonding jig specification to fabricate a bonding jig to hold said bracket selected for each of said plurality of teeth in said dental arch; holding said bracket selected for each of said plurality of teeth in said dental arch in said bonding jig; and engaging said bonding jig holding said bracket selected for each of said plurality of teeth with said dental arch; and disposing said bracket selected for each of said plurality of teeth at said a bracket bonding location on each of said plurality of teeth in said dental arch (see figs. 5, 7, pars. 30, 46). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the method of Cinader/Cosse to the steps of generating and using a bonding jig as taught by Schulhof in order to ensure the brackets will be placed in the proper position on the teeth as designed in order to ensure the desired orthodontic treatment outcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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 filed July 30, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues with respect to the 101 rejection that claims 1 and 9 are directed towards addressing specific technological problems in capture of images of a dental arch and conversion of these captured images into a virtual dental arch and selection of physical bracket and therefore the claims are outside a mental process or abstract idea. However, it is noted that there are no limitations in the claims that overcome the judicial exception as discussed above in detail. The applicant argues that the treatment without using a computer would not be as successful. While it is noted that using a computer would likely result in a more accurate treatment along with a faster process, the degree of success and timeline of the treatment is not as issue in determining if the claim limitations overcome the judicial exception. To overcome the judicial exception, the claims would need to provide an improvement to the general-purpose computer or provide a transformation (i.e. a digital to physical step). Neither of the two requirements are required by the claims and therefore the 101 rejection is maintained.
Further the applicant argues that the claims overcome step 1 since the process is an improvement in an orthodontic treatment. However, as discussed above, the claims are a statutory category, however, fall within the judicial exception.
The applicant further argues that the claims overcome step 2A since they do not include or recite any mathematical concepts, method of organizing human activity, a mental process, or a lower of nature or a natural phenomenon. However, it is noted that the claimed invention is a method (to be carried out on a computer) and a system (a general purpose computer) and only claimed limitations of receiving data and processing the data. Such that the limitations can be carried out as a mental process. Such that the claimed invention does not improve the general purpose computer or provide a transformation (i.e. digital to physical) and therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Further the applicant argues with respect to step 2B the claims overcome the rejection since there is more than applying instructions to implement an abstract idea including capturing an image. However, as discussed above, capturing images does not overcome the judicial exception such that it can be done mentally or by hand.
It is noted that the applicant has requested a telephone, however, an interview was already held on 8/12/2026 to discuss the amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Sachdeva for teaching mid-course treatment of bracket and wire orthodontic treatment.
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 HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 9/22/2026
Prosecution Insights