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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to application filed 11/21/2024. It is noted that applications claims priority to EP 23211672.3 filed 11/23/2023. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement dated 2/27/2025 has been acknowledged and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. The test as to whether a claim is a proper dependent claim is that it shall include every limitation of the claim from which it depends, or, in other words, that it shall not conceivably be infringed by anything which would not also infringe the basic claim.
When, as here, an independent claim recites a particular method, a dependent claim drawn to an apparatus capable of performing the method of the independent claim is not a proper dependent claim, since the dependent claim (the apparatus) could conceivably be infringed by mere possession of the apparatus without performing any particular method steps at all, thereby infringing the dependent claim (the apparatus) without necessarily infringing the independent claim (the method), in violation of the infringement test for proper dependency of claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n)(III).
Applicant is required to cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim(s) in independent form.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 15-16 and 17-19 are drawn to a method for managing dental aligner treatment, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 1-14 are drawn to an system for managing dental aligner treatment, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A system for managing a dental aligner treatment of a patient, the system comprising:
an acquisition device configured to acquire:
magnetic resonance data of a maxillofacial region of the patient, and impression data of a plurality of teeth of the patient; and
a computer configured to:
determine treatment information based on the impression data, wherein the treatment information comprises a design of one or more dental aligners to be used during the dental aligner treatment of the patient and/or an initial schedule for an exchange of the one or more dental aligners during the dental aligner treatment of the patient;
output an initial dental aligner treatment plan proposal comprising the treatment information;
analyze the magnetic resonance data and determine a condition of the maxillofacial region of the patient; and
determine a modification to the initial dental aligner treatment plan proposal based on the determined condition of the maxillofacial region of the patient.
These recited underlined limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to certain methods of organizing human activity –managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
The limitations of acquiring magnetic resonance data of a maxillofacial region and impression data of a plurality of teeth; determining treatment information based on the data; outputting an initial dental aligner treatment proposal plan; analyzing the magnetic resonance data and determining a condition of the patient and determining a modification to the initial plan as drafted and detailed above, are steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites steps for organizing human interactions. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of detecting disease. This abstract idea falls under methods of organizing human activity. A mental process that a doctor should follow when testing a patient has been found to be an abstract idea and a method of organizing human behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Furthermore, the claims are directed to tracking and filtering (analyzing) of the magnetic resonance and impression data to determine a treatment plan is recited at a high level of generality. Tracking information or filtering content has been found to be an abstract idea and a method of organizing human behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). That is other than reciting “acquisition device” and “computer” language, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed between people or by a person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people or managing personal behavior or relationships then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system for managing a dental aligner treatment of a patient, the system comprising:
an acquisition device configured to acquire:
magnetic resonance data of a maxillofacial region of the patient, and impression data of a plurality of teeth of the patient; and
a computer configured to:
determine treatment information based on the impression data, wherein the treatment information comprises a design of one or more dental aligners to be used during the dental aligner treatment of the patient and/or an initial schedule for an exchange of the one or more dental aligners during the dental aligner treatment of the patient;
output an initial dental aligner treatment plan proposal comprising the treatment information;
analyze the magnetic resonance data and determine a condition of the maxillofacial region of the patient; and
determine a modification to the initial dental aligner treatment plan proposal based on the determined condition of the maxillofacial region of the patient.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
the recitations performing the functions by the computer amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see pgs. 18 and 19 of the present Specification.
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)– for example, the recitation of an acquisition device and computer merely limits the abstract idea the environment of a computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and the same analysis applies with regards to whether they amount to “significantly more.”
Therefore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the at least one abstract idea.
Independent claims 15 and 17 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, for similar reasons as representative independent claim 1, analogous independent claims 15 and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor add significantly more.
The following dependent claims further the define the abstract idea or are also directed to an abstract idea itself:
Dependent claims 3, 6 and 12 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract).
In relation to claim 5 these claims specify analyzing tooth trajectories and/or positions which is a mental process as it is an evaluation that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind.
In relation to claims 9-11 and 13 these claims specify analyzing data and proposing a modification; and acquiring data/determining treatment information which is a certain method of organizing human activity, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people or managing personal behavior or relationships.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 8, 14, 16, 18 and 19: These claims specify: a scanner; MR data/motion simulator; non-transitory computer readable medium; and computer which thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Claims 2, 4, 7: These claims recite outputting the modification; generating a 3Dmodel; and outputting a modification to a manufacturing apparatus which thus amount to mere instructions to apply an exception by invoking the computer as a tool OR reciting the idea of a solution (i.e. claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished) or outcome (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims further do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter free from Prior Art
Gao (2018/0110589), the closest domestic prior art of record teaches a computer configured to: determine treatment information based on the impression data (Gao; para. [0046], [0074] and [0075]).
Lauer (EP-3827745-A1) the closest foreign prior art of record teaches a method for compiling a dental overview map of the dentition of an examination object on the basis of magnetic resonance (MR) data from a MR measurement of the dentition.
Barchetti (Bartchetti et al. “Static and dynamic MR imaging in the evaluation of temporomandibular disorders.” European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology “Sapienza” University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 2014; 18: 2983-2987), the closest non patent literature of record teaches a study to prove if dynamic HASTE (half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo) sequences can be used in the diagnosis of internal derangement disorders of temporomandibular joint (TMJ).
The closest prior arts of record fail to expressly teach, alone or in combination:
A system for managing a dental aligner treatment of a patient, the system comprising:
an acquisition device configured to acquire:
magnetic resonance data of a maxillofacial region of the patient, and impression data of a plurality of teeth of the patient; and a computer configured to:
determine treatment information based on the impression data, wherein the treatment information comprises a design of one or more dental aligners to be used during the dental aligner treatment of the patient and/or an initial schedule for an exchange of the one or more dental aligners during the dental aligner treatment of the patient; output an initial dental aligner treatment plan proposal comprising the treatment information;
analyze the magnetic resonance data and determine a condition of the maxillofacial region of the patient; and
determine a modification to the initial dental aligner treatment plan proposal based on the determined condition of the maxillofacial region of the patient.
The closest prior arts of record do not teach a magnetic resonance derived modification of a digital aligner plan as taught by the pending claims.
No final decision on patentability has been made in light of pending rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH GIANG MICHELLE LE whose telephone number is (571)272-8207. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8:30am - 5:30pm PST.
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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
LINH GIANG "MICHELLE" LE
PRIMARY EXAMINER
Art Unit 3686
/LINH GIANG LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686 11/1/2025