DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Applications No. 18/448,878; 18/165,322; 16/697,077; 16/030,754; 14/665,926; 14/341,645; 14/034,373; 11/760,705, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed applications make no mention of matching previous 3D segmented models with current 2D images of the teeth. Rather, they are directed to comparing 3D segmented models against 3D unsegmented models. All recitations in the previous specifications of the term “dimension” are in regards to three dimensions. There is comparison with “Current Teeth Image”, however in [0051] of 18/448,878 for example, “Current Teeth Image” is defined as current jaw data and that preprocessing is performed on it before comparison.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kitching et al. (US 2016/0074138) in view of Sterental et al. (US 2008/0305452).
Kitching shows a method for orthodontic treatment progress tracking ([0002]), the method comprising tracking progress of an orthodontic treatment where the following is performed: accessing a previous three-dimensional (3D) segmented model of a patient’s teeth ([0066]; [0036]); accessing a current two-dimensional (2D) image of the patient’s teeth ([0032]; 2D image; claim 14); matching teeth from the previous 3D segmented model with teeth of the current 2D image of the patient’s teeth (claim 1); detecting a deviation between a current position of a tooth of the current 2D image and an intended position of the tooth ([0039] discusses the deviations; claim 1 discusses this as “measuring a distance between a location…”); generating a report indicating the deviation ([0096]-[0097]); and outputting the report to an output device associated with displaying the report to a treating professional (Fig. 11). With respect to claim 2, further comprising, at the progress tracking, determining whether the orthodontic treatment is off-track and/or whether midcourse correction is needed ([0064]; midcourse correction equivalent to “adjustment of any teeth that are off track from any of the pre-existing stages to a Corrected Stage(s)”). With respect to claim 3, wherein the report further includes an indication of the orthodontic treatment being off-track and/or an indication that midcourse correction is needed (Fig. 11 shows the indications of these including distance and suggestions for correction; [0109] discusses a message warning the technician when off track). With respect to claim 4, further comprising receiving instructions for modifying an orthodontic treatment plan associated with the orthodontic treatment based on the indication that the orthodontic treatment is off-track and/or that the midcourse correction is needed ([0064]; [0116] discusses the modifications). With respect to claim 5, wherein determining whether the orthodontic treatment is off-track and/or whether midcourse correction is needed includes determining whether a difference in one or more positional parameters of the current position of the tooth relative to the intended position of the tooth is beyond a threshold difference value ([0102] discusses a distance threshold of 0.07mm). With respect to claim 6, further comprising generating a revised orthodontic treatment plan for repositioning the patient’s teeth from the current position of the tooth to a final position of the tooth ([0116] discusses modifications/revising the orthodontic treatment plan). With respect to claim 9, wherein the orthodontic treatment includes a series of appliances that the patient is prescribed to sequentially wear over at least a portion of a duration of the treatment ([0060] discusses the series of appliances). With respect to claim 10, wherein the report further includes a visualization of the deviation (visualizations shown in Fig. 11-15).
System claims 11-14, 16-17 are rejected similarly to the above and additionally one or more processors, and a memory, including instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the system to do the above (Fig. 1-2 show the computer components; CPU being equivalent to processor and memory to storage device). With respect to claim 16, wherein the current 2D image is based on a scan of the patient’s teeth ([0040] discusses the scanner using any means for obtaining an image). With respect to claim 17, wherein the output device is associated with one or more client computers (technician/client’s computer as seen in Fig. 1, 2).
Method claims 18-20 are rejected similarly to the above, particularly with respect to claims 1-2 and 6.
However, Kitching fails to show (with respect to claims 1, 7-8, and 15) setting a schedule for tracking progress of an orthodontic treatment with a series of progress checkpoints, determining one or more recommended increments of time between the progress checkpoints of the tracking schedule; wherein the recommended one or more increments of time is based on timing between when the patient wears one or more sets of appliances; and wherein the system includes one or more server computers that is configured to connect to one or more client computers at one or more dental practitioner offices.
Sterental similarly shows orthodontic treatment progress tracking wherein a schedule is set for tracking progress of an orthodontic treatment with a series of progress checkpoints ([0032] discusses the scheduling of one or more appointments and that the appointments can be for “treatment progress tracking”); determining one or more recommended increments of time between the progress checkpoints of the tracking schedule, wherein the recommended one or more increments of time is based on timing between when the patient wears one or more sets of appliances ([0032]; “identify a date or specific date range for scheduling one or more appointments” and “appointment timing can be identified to coincide with another treatment event, such as administering an appliance or set of appliance, or wearing of an appliance(s) by the patient for a period of time”); and wherein the system includes one or more server computers that is configured to connect to one or more client computers at one or more dental practitioner offices ([0007] discusses the computer system including a coupled “server”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kitching’s method to include the scheduling of appointments for progress tracking, base it around increments of time coinciding to timing of when the patient wears one or more set of appliances, and the use of a server as taught by Sterental in order to more effectively manage delivery of orthodontic treatment and increase treatment efficacy ([0006]) and utilize known computer system components such as a server that allows more than one computer access.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772