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 .
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. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 14 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17 of patent US 12156714. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claim(s) is/are an obvious variation of the patented claims, or entirely covered by the patented claims.
For example, claim 1 of the instant application discloses A computer-implemented method for analysis of dental attachments used in conjunction with a dental aligner worn by the patient to move the patient’s teeth in accordance with a clinical treatment plan comprising multiple steps. These limitations are all disclosed by claim 1 of the patent US 12156714. Therefore, claim 1 of the instant application is covered by claim 1 of the patent US 12156714, and is/are not patently distinct from the mentioned patent claim.
The following table illustrates a comparative mapping between the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the patent US 12156714.
Claim 1 of the Instant Application 18920811
Claim 1 of the Patent 12156714
A computer-implemented method for analysis of dental attachments used in conjunction with a dental aligner worn by the patient to move the patient’s teeth in accordance with a clinical treatment plan, the method comprising:
A method, the method comprising:
receiving a series of 2D images of a patient’s teeth taken while the patient is wearing the dental aligner;
receiving image data associated with both a patient's teeth and a removable dental appliance,
wherein the image data was taken while the removable dental appliance was worn on the patient's teeth;
analyzing the received series of 2D images of the patient’s teeth to confirm that one or more attachments are present and bonded on the patient’s tooth, and/or to assess an interaction between the aligner and the attachments bonded on the patient’s tooth to determine if one or more of the attachments bonded on the patient’s tooth has a defect; and
identifying, using the image data, one or more locations of undesirable contact between the removable dental appliance and the patient's teeth and/or one or more attachments on the patient's teeth, wherein the one or more locations of undesirable contact correlate with undesirable tooth movement compared to expected tooth movement according to a treatment plan; displaying a three-dimensional (3D) model of the removable dental appliance and the patient's teeth on a user interface, wherein the identified one or more locations of undesirable contact are highlighted in the 3D model; and
outputting, to a user, an indication of the status of the attachments.
emitting an alert via the user interface of the identified one or more locations of undesirable contact.
The following is a complete listing of the correspondence between claims of the instant application and claims of the patent(s):
Claims of the Instant Application 18920811
1
14
Claims of the Patent 12156714
1
17
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) 1, 2, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 20210338379)
Regarding claim 1, Salah discloses A computer-implemented method for analysis of dental attachments used in conjunction with a dental aligner worn by the patient to move the patient’s teeth in accordance with a clinical treatment plan (Salah, “[0394] At the start of the treatment, or during the treatment, the orthodontist may fix one or more attachments 30 (FIGS. 19 and 20) or buttons 32 (FIG. 21) on the teeth of the patient. [0397] At regular intervals, the patient goes to the orthodontist for a visual inspection, notably to check whether the displacement of the teeth conforms to the expectations and whether the aligner worn by the patient is still suited to the treatment. [0398] The orthodontist may also check if an attachment or a button has come off a tooth”), the method comprising:
receiving a series of 2D images of a patient’s teeth taken while the patient is wearing the dental aligner (Salah, “[0404] The invention provides a method for assessing the shape of an orthodontic aligner, said method comprising the following steps: [0405] a″) acquisition of at least one image at least partially representing the aligner in a service position in which it is worn by a patient, called “analysis image””);
analyzing the received series of 2D images of the patient’s teeth to confirm that one or more attachments are present and bonded on the patient’s tooth, and/or to assess an interaction between the aligner and the attachments bonded on the patient’s tooth to determine if one or more of the attachments bonded on the patient’s tooth has a defect (Salah, “[0406] b″) analysis of the analysis image by means of a deep learning device, preferably a neural network, trained by means of a learning base, so as to determine a value for at least one tooth attribute of an “analysis tooth zone” of the analysis image, the tooth attribute relating to a separation between the tooth represented by the analysis tooth zone, and the aligner represented on the analysis image, and/or for an image attribute of the analysis image, the image attribute relating to a separation between at least one tooth represented on the analysis image, and the aligner represented on said analysis image. [0413] Alternatively, or additionally, the tooth attribute allows to determine the loss of an attachment or of a button. Indeed, the existence of a separation may be due to the absence of an attachment or a button. In particular, the tooth attribute may qualify whether the separation relates to the absence of an attachment or of a button, or not”. Therefore, the analysis images is analyzed to determine a tooth attribute relating to a separation, thus to assess the absence of an attachment); and
generating an indication of the status of the attachments (“Salah, [0407] c″) preferably, assessment of the suitability of the aligner as a function of the value of said tooth or image attribute; [0408] d″) preferably, sending of an information message as a function of said assessment”. Therefore, the information message corresponds to an indication of the status of the attachments).
On the other hand, the above embodiment of Salah fails to explicitly disclose but another embodiment of Salah discloses outputting, to a user, a message (Salah, “[0382] For example, if the image acquired is “unsatisfactory”, the acquisition apparatus may emit a light, for example red, and/or ring, and/or generate a voice message, and/or vibrate, and/or display a message on its screen”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the embodiments of Salah, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, applying the displaying a message of the second embodiment of Salah to the message of the first embodiment of Salah. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to visually provide users with clear and straightforward information.
Regarding claim 14, it recites similar limitations as claim 1, except that it further recites one or more processors; a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory configured to store computer-program instructions, that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform a computer-implemented method.
Salah further discloses “[0461] The invention relates also: [0462] to a computer program, and in particular a dedicated application for cellphones, comprising program code instructions for the execution of one or more steps of any method according to the invention, when said program is run by a computer, [0463] to a computer medium on which such a program is stored, for example a memory or a CD-ROM”.
Regarding claim 2, Salah discloses The method of claim 1.
Salah further discloses identifying the attachments using an attachment verification engine (Salah, “Abstract, analysis of the analysis image by means of a deep learning device. [0398] The orthodontist may also check if an attachment or a button has come off a tooth. [0413] the tooth attribute allows to determine the loss of an attachment or of a button. Indeed, the existence of a separation may be due to the absence of an attachment or a button. In particular, the tooth attribute may qualify whether the separation relates to the absence of an attachment or of a button, or not”).
Regarding claim(s) 15, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 2.
Claim(s) 3, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 20210338379) in view of Nagai (US 20140093457).
Regarding claim 3, Salah discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the attachments bonded on the patient’s tooth, has/have been disclosed.
On the other hand, Salah fails to explicitly disclose but Nagai discloses identifying the caries from the series of 2D images of the patient’s teeth by comparing the received 2D images of the patient’s teeth with one or more images of the teeth taken prior to caries (Nagai, “[0023] In a related embodiment, the method further includes prior to contacting the tooth or oral cavity with the composition at least one step selected from: removing loose or diseased bone material, cleaning the tooth, comparing the bone material to a previous image of the tooth, detecting a caries in the tooth”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Salah and Nagai, to include all limitations of claim 3. That is, applying the detecting differences based on image comparison of Nagai to the attachments bonded on the patient’s tooth of Salah. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to offer the opportunity for improved health and also tooth appearance (Nagai, [0008]).
Regarding claim(s) 16, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 3.
Claim(s) 4-6, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 20210338379) in view of Yatagai et al. (US 20090079993).
Regarding claim 4, Salah discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Salah fails to explicitly disclose but Yatagai discloses wherein receiving the series of 2D images of the patient’s teeth comprises receiving one or more penetrative scans of the patient’s teeth (Yatagai, “[0253] It is preferable that the CCD camera 26 serves both as a 2D-CCD camera having a sensitivity band in visible light as a two-dimensional imaging device, and a 2D-CCD camera as a two-dimensional photodetector used for FD-OCT using a cylindrical lens. Thus, together with an interference spectroscopic image of teeth obtained by using FD-OCT, a visible light image of teeth can be obtained by using the CCD camera 26”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Salah and Yatagai, to include all limitations of claim 4. That is, adding the imaging mechanism of Yatagai to the system of Salah. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide an optical coherence tomography apparatus having a simple structure, capable of performing high-speed imaging and being applicable to dental measurements (Yatagai, [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Salah in view of Yatagai discloses The method of claim 4.
On the other hand, Salah fails to explicitly disclose but Yatagai discloses wherein receiving the penetrative scan comprises receiving an Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) scan (Yatagai, “[0253] It is preferable that the CCD camera 26 serves both as a 2D-CCD camera having a sensitivity band in visible light as a two-dimensional imaging device, and a 2D-CCD camera as a two-dimensional photodetector used for FD-OCT using a cylindrical lens. Thus, together with an interference spectroscopic image of teeth obtained by using FD-OCT, a visible light image of teeth can be obtained by using the CCD camera 26”). The same motivation of claim 4 applies here.
Regarding claim 6, Salah in view of Yatagai discloses The method of claim 4.
On the other hand, Salah fails to explicitly disclose but Yatagai discloses wherein receiving the penetrative scan comprises receiving a visible light image (Yatagai, “[0253] It is preferable that the CCD camera 26 serves both as a 2D-CCD camera having a sensitivity band in visible light as a two-dimensional imaging device, and a 2D-CCD camera as a two-dimensional photodetector used for FD-OCT using a cylindrical lens. Thus, together with an interference spectroscopic image of teeth obtained by using FD-OCT, a visible light image of teeth can be obtained by using the CCD camera 26”). The same motivation of claim 4 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 17-19, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 4-6, respectively.
Claim(s) 7, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 20210338379) in view of Kuo et al. (US 20080233529).
Regarding claim 7, Salah discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Salah fails to explicitly disclose but Kuo discloses wherein outputting the indication of the status of the attachments comprises indicating, as output, contact regions between the attachments and the dental aligner (Kuo, “[0017] FIG. 4A shows a lower jaw together with a polymeric shell dental appliance illustrating the placement of an active attachment device and a corresponding contact region on a surface of a polymeric shell dental appliance, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Salah and Kuo, to include all limitations of claim 7. That is, adding the contact region of attachment of Kuo to the status indication of the attachment of Salah. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide active attachment devices that interact with a polymeric shell dental appliance to provide additional forces on a patient's dentition (Kuo, [0003]).
Regarding claim(s) 20, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 7.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13, 22, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 20210338379) in view of Morton et al. (US 20100138025).
Regarding claim 9, Salah discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Salah fails to explicitly disclose but Morton discloses analyzing the attachments by automated shape analysis of the attachments to confirm that they are within an acceptable tolerance of the clinical treatment plan comprises confirming the location and/or orientation of the attachments relative to the clinical treatment plan (Morton, “[0131] In particular, the shape and location of the parametric patient specific attachment are determined such the following conditions are satisfied: 1) torque is provided around a long axis of the tooth with a clinically admissible magnitude; 2) a clinically reasonable extrusive force is provided; and 3) collisions of the attachment with other teeth (both of the same and opposite jaws) in intermediate stages of teeth movement are excluded”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Salah and Morton, to include all limitations of claim 9. That is, adding the determining the shape and location of the attachment satisfying certain conditions of Morton to the attachments of Salah. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide orthodontic systems and related methods for designing and providing improved or more effective tooth moving systems for eliciting a desired tooth movement and/or repositioning teeth into a desired arrangement (Morton, [0007]).
Regarding claim 10, Salah discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Salah fails to explicitly disclose but Morton discloses analyzing the attachments by automated shape analysis of the attachments to confirm that they are within an acceptable tolerance of a clinical treatment plan comprises determining if the attachments have a proper size and/or shape, cracks, voids, or inclusions (Morton, “[0131] In particular, the shape and location of the parametric patient specific attachment are determined such the following conditions are satisfied: 1) torque is provided around a long axis of the tooth with a clinically admissible magnitude; 2) a clinically reasonable extrusive force is provided; and 3) collisions of the attachment with other teeth (both of the same and opposite jaws) in intermediate stages of teeth movement are excluded”). The same motivation of claim 9 applies here.
Regarding claim 13, it recites similar limitations as claim 1, except that it further recites automated shape analysis of the attachment to confirm that the attachment is within an acceptable tolerance of a clinical treatment plan.
On the other hand, Salah fails to explicitly disclose but Morton discloses automated shape analysis of the attachment to confirm that the attachment is within an acceptable tolerance of a clinical treatment plan (Morton, “[0131] In particular, the shape and location of the parametric patient specific attachment are determined such the following conditions are satisfied: 1) torque is provided around a long axis of the tooth with a clinically admissible magnitude; 2) a clinically reasonable extrusive force is provided; and 3) collisions of the attachment with other teeth (both of the same and opposite jaws) in intermediate stages of teeth movement are excluded”). The same motivation of claim 9 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 22, 23, 25, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 9, 10, 13, respectively.
Claim(s) 11, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 20210338379) in view of Stookey (US 20090214089).
Regarding claim 11, Salah discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Salah fails to explicitly disclose but Stookey discloses wherein the indication of the status comprises an annotated image of the patient’s teeth (Stookey, claim 22, “displaying the first image including a graphical overlay indicative of a mineralization status of the tooth determined via the step of automatically analyzing the first image”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Salah and Stookey, to include all limitations of claim 11. That is, applying the status overlay of Stookey to the status of attachments of Salah. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to improve the user’s experience by providing visual indications of the status.
Regarding claim(s) 24, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 11.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 20210338379) in view of Elazar et al. (US 20190015177).
Regarding claim 12, Salah discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Salah fails to explicitly disclose but Elazar discloses adjusting the attachments and repeating the steps after adjustment has been made, until acceptable adjustments have been made so that the attachments are compatible with planned orthodontic treatment (Elazar, “[0140] Alternatively, tablet 806 displays two videos, one is the video being captured by camera 852, and the other is a rendering of corresponding viewports of the immersive photographic model superimposed with the synthetic 3D model of the bracket. The motion of camera 852 may control the selection of viewports, so that corresponding images are continuously displayed. A health care provider 1010 may place the bracket on a tooth while continuously comparing the videos being displayed until he is satisfied that the placement of the bracket on both images match”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Salah and Elazar, to include all limitations of claim 12. That is, adding continuous adjustment of Elazar to the attachment of Salah. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to position orthodontic brackets throughout the prolonged treatment more accurately and efficiently (Elazar, [0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8, 21 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, it recites, wherein outputting the indication of the status of the attachments comprises indicating, as output, gaps between the aligner and the attachments. None of the prior arts on the record or any of the prior arts searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the claim(s) as a whole.
Regarding claim 21, it is interpreted and allowed under similar rationale set forth in claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GRACE Q LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights