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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the present action filed 05/22/2026.
Claims 9 and 12 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13-15, and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to for stating “wherein the client device is a patient device, the notification comprising instructions to the patient to wear a subsequent dental appliance corresponding to the subsequent treatment stage”. It should state “wherein the client device is a patient device, and the notification comprises instructions to the patient to wear a subsequent dental appliance corresponding to the subsequent treatment stage”. 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 1-8, 10-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis:
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 11 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1 and 11 are both directed to a method. Dependent Claims 2-7, 10, and 13-20 are also directed to a method and therefore also fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong One:
Claim 1, which is indicative of the inventive concept, recites the following:
A method for optimizing a dental treatment plan, the method comprising:
Accessing, at a remote computing device, a dental treatment plan for a patient, the dental treatment plan comprising a series of sequential treatment stages, each treatment stage associated with a particular dental appliance in a preplanned series of dental appliances;
Receiving, at the remote computing device, patient data comprising one or more progress indicators associated with the dental treatment plan;
determining, at the remote computing device, based on the one or more progress indicators, a level of progress associated with the dental treatment plan;
based at least in part on the determined level of progress, determining, at the remote computing device, a treatment modification for the patient that adjusts a timing of transitions between already planned treatment stages of the series of sequential treatment stages in a manner that causes the patient to progress through the dental treatment plan faster than initially planned using existing appliances from the preplanned series of dental appliances,
wherein the treatment modification comprises advancing the patient to a subsequent treatment stage in the series of sequential treatment stages before a preplanned advancement time using the existing appliances from the preplanned series of dental appliances,
generating, at the remote computing device, a notification indicating at least the determined treatment modification;
and sending, to a client device, the notification to display.
Claim 8 further recites:
receiving, at a remote computing device, patient data comprising one or more progress indicators associated with a dental treatment plan for a patient, wherein the dental treatment plan comprises a series of sequential treatment stages, each treatment stage associated with a particular dental appliance in a preplanned series of dental appliances;
processing, at the remote computing device, the patient data to determine a level of progression associated with the dental treatment plan based on the one or more progress indicators;
modifying, at the remote computing device, the dental treatment plan in response to the determined level of progression, wherein the modifying comprises adjusting a timing of transitions between already planned treatment stages of the series of sequential treatment stages in a manner that causes the patient to progress through the dental treatment plan faster than initially planned using existing appliances from the preplanned series of dental appliances;
and generating, at a remote computing device, a notification of the modified dental treatment plan, and sending, to a client device, the notification for display.
Claim 11 further recites:
accessing, at a remote computing device, a dental treatment plan for a patient comprising a series of sequential treatment stages, each treatment stage associated with a particular dental appliance in a preplanned series of dental appliances;
receiving, at the remote computing device, patient data associated with one or more stages of the dental treatment plan;
processing, at the remote computing device, the patient data to identify one or more progress indicators of treatment progress with respect to the dental treatment plan;
determining, at the remote computing device, based on the one or more progress indicators, a level of progress associated with the dental treatment plan;
and performing, by the remote computing device, one or more actions based at least in part on the determined level of progress,
wherein performing the one or more actions comprises: determining a treatment modification to the dental treatment plan that adjusts a timing of transitions between already planned treatment stages of the series of sequential treatment stages in a manner that causes the patient to progress through the dental treatment plan faster or slower than initially planned using existing appliances from the preplanned series of dental appliances,
the treatment modification comprising advancing the patient to a subsequent treatment stage in the series of sequential treatment stages before a preplanned advancement time using the existing appliances from the preplanned series of dental appliances,
or retaining the patient in a current treatment stage of the series of sequential treatment stages beyond the preplanned advancement time using the existing appliances from the preplanned series of dental appliances;
generating, at the remote computing device, a notification indicating at least the determined treatment modification; and sending, to a client device, the notification for display.
The limitations as shown in underline above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation and evaluation) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, and/or mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions) – in this case, receiving data, determining a level of progress, determining a modification including adjusting timing of transitions between already planned treatment stages, and generating a notification indicating the determined treatment modification, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 10, and 13-20 include other limitations directed toward the abstract idea. For example, Claims 2 and 13 recite the notification comprises instructions to the patient to wear a subsequent dental appliance corresponding to the subsequent treatment stage, Claim 3 recites what the patient data comprises, Claim 4 recites the progress indicators comprises at least one of indicators of a position of a tooth or indicators of a level of movement of a tooth, Claim 5 recites outputting a level of progress associated with the dental plan, Claim 6 recites comparing the one or more progress indicators of the received patient data to historical progress indicators of historical patient data, Claims 7 and 10 recite the assessment schedules comprising the dental treatment plan, Claim 14 recites details of what the dental treatment plan comprises, Claim 15 recites details of what the patient data and progress indicators comprise, Claim 16 recites identifying progress indicators or determining a level of progress associated with the plan and outputting progress indicators, Claim 17 recites comparing progress indicators of the patient to historical progress indicators, Claim 18 recites identifying oral health conditions, Claim 19 recites the dental treatment plan calls for dental auxiliaries, and the patient data comprises a 3D point cloud of a 2D point cloud, Claim 20 recites determining whether to order a second subset of dental appliances wherein the second subset of dental appliances was not manufactured at a first time. These limitations only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent Claims 2-7, 10, and 13-20 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-7, 10, and 13-20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 8, and 11.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong Two:
Claims 1, 8, and 11 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e., the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the remote computing device and client device of Claims 1, 8, and 11) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer parts. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that Dental consumer/patient system 102 generally represents any type or form of computing device capable of reading computer-executable instructions. Dental consumer/patient system 102 may be, for example, a desktop computer, a tablet computing device, a laptop, a smartphone, an augmented reality device, or other consumer device (see Applicant’s specification, ¶ 0051). In embodiments, dental consumer/patient system 102 includes a client device 230B and/or one or more connected diagnostics monitoring client device(s) 260. In embodiments, dental professional system 150 includes a client device 230A. … any of the treatment plan coordination platform 220, the client device 230A, the client device 230B, …and the one or more connected diagnostics monitoring client device(s) 260, can include, can be, or can otherwise be connected to one or more computing devices [0096]. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 8, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
Dependent Claims 2, 5, 13-14, and 16 recite additional elements, but these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Claim 2 recites the previously recited client device a new additional element of a patient device and specifies the client device is a patient device, Claim 5 recites a new additional element of a machine learning models and specifies the patient data as input to one of more machine learning models and receiving, as output, a level of progress. Claim 13 recites a new element of a patient system and specifies generating a notification indicating the determined treatment modification, wherein the notification is sent to a patient system, the notification comprising instructions to the patient to wear a subsequent dental appliance, Claim 14 recites a new element of a dental professional system and specifies generating a notification indicating the determined treatment modification, wherein the notification is sent to a dental professional system associated with a health care provider. Claim 16 recites a new element of a machine learning model and specifies the dental treatment plan is performed by processing the patient data using machine learning models that output at least one of the one or more progress indicators. However, these additional elements are used in their expected fashion, so they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. These limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and hence, do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims, when considered individually or in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of the remote computing device and client device of Claims 1, 8, and 11 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such Claims 1, 8, and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 3-4, 6-7, 10, 15, and 17-20 further narrow the abstract idea and do not provide an inventive concept or additional elements. Claim 3 recites what the patient data comprises, Claim 4 recites the progress indicators comprises at least one of indicators of a position of a tooth or indicators of a level of movement of a tooth, Claim 6 recites comparing the one or more progress indicators of the received patient data to historical progress indicators of historical patient data, Claims 7 and 10 recite the assessment schedules comprising the dental treatment plan, Claim 15 recites details of what the patient data and progress indicators comprise, Claim 17 recites comparing progress indicators of the patient to historical progress indicators, Claim 18 recites identifying oral health conditions, Claim 19 recites the dental treatment plan calls for dental auxiliaries, and the patient data comprises a 3D point cloud of a 2D point cloud, Claim 20 recites determining whether to order a second subset of dental appliances wherein the second subset of dental appliances was not manufactured at a first time.
Claims 2, 5, 13-14, and 16 recite new additional elements. Claim 2 recites a new additional element of a patient system and specifies the notification is sent to the patient system, Claim 5 recites a new additional element of a machine learning models and specifies the patient data as input to one of more machine learning models and receiving, as output, a level of progress. Claim 13 recites a new element of a patient system and specifies generating a notification indicating the determined treatment modification, wherein the notification is sent to a patient system, the notification comprising instructions to the patient to wear a subsequent dental appliance, Claim 14 recites a new element of a dental professional system and specifies generating a notification indicating the determined treatment modification, wherein the notification is sent to a dental professional system associated with a health care provider. Claim 16 recites a new element of a machine learning model and specifies the dental treatment plan is performed by processing the patient data using machine learning models that output at least one of the one or more progress indicators. Hence, Claims 2-7, 10, and 13-20 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything to what is already present when looking at the elements individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 101 are being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 11, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Unklesbay et al. (US 20250090273 A1) in view of Chekhonin et al. (US 20200306011 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Unklesbay discloses the following:
A method for optimizing a dental treatment plan, the method comprising: (Unklesbay discloses the present disclosure provides a computer implemented method for reviewing an orthodontic treatment plan for a patient's dental arch having a current arrangement of teeth, the method comprising the steps of:…[0010].)
accessing, at a remote computing device, a dental treatment plan for a patient, the dental treatment plan comprising a series of sequential treatment stages, each treatment stage associated with a particular dental appliance in a series of dental appliances; (Unklesbay discloses a non-transient, computer-readable medium containing program instructions for causing a computer to: receive, from a remote site, receiving a request after at least one stage of the treatment plan has occurred or the dental arch has reached an arrangement of teeth different than the current arrangement [0037]. Often, computer readable media are provided as part of a computing device. The computing device may have one or more processors, …such as a display,…[0057]. The process includes receiving information regarding the orthodontic condition of a patient and/or practitioner preferences for treatment and subsequently generating an original treatment plan for repositioning the patient's teeth (Step 202). This original treatment plan may represent the beginning of orthodontic treatment or may represent a new phase of treatment commenced after the patient has undergone some orthodontic or dental treatment. At some point after approval of the original treatment plan, the practitioner determines that a revision is required. In other embodiments, the revised treatment plan includes a different appliance than the original treatment plan, such as a switch from braces to aligners, or a switch from aligners to a retention appliance, or a switch from restorative dental treatment to orthodontic treatment [0061-63].)
receiving, at a remote computing device, patient data comprising one or more progress indicators associated with the dental treatment plan; (Unklesbay discloses having both a beginning position and a final target position for each tooth, the process can next define a treatment path or tooth path for the motion of each tooth. This can include defining a plurality of planned successive tooth arrangements for moving teeth along a treatment path from an initial arrangement to a selected final arrangement [0068]. The position/movement of the tooth is interpreted as the progress indicator.)
determining, at a remote computing device, based on the one or more progress indicators, a level of progress associated with the dental treatment plan; based at least in part on the determined level of progress,… (Unklesbay discloses a determination that the progression of a patient's teeth is deviating or not tracking with the original treatment plan can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Deviations can be detected by visual and/or clinical inspection of the patient's teeth. For example, a deviation from the original treatment plan may become apparent when the patient tries to wear a next appliance in a series and fails to properly seat the appliance given the difference between the actual tooth arrangement and the planned arrangement [0034].)
determining, at a remote computing device, a treatment modification for the patient, …wherein the treatment modification comprises: advancing the patient to a subsequent treatment stage in the series of sequential treatment stages before a preplanned advancement time… (Unklesbay discloses after wearing an appliance for a prescribed period of time, the patient may reengage with the practitioner who may evaluate the result of the first iteration of the original treatment plan… in the event that the first iteration of treatment has resulted in satisfactory final occlusion of the patient's teeth, the treatment may be ended. However, if the first iteration of treatment did not complete the desired movement of the patient's teeth, the practitioner may determine whether or not the treatment is still progressing according to plan [0077-78].)
generating, at a remote computing device, a notification indicating at least the determined treatment modification. (Unklesbay discloses display on a screen, a digital representation of at least a portion of the original treatment plan and a revised treatment plan for user approval, the revised treatment plan including one or more stages of treatment, wherein each stage includes a planned arrangement of teeth in the dental arch and at least one stage includes a modified arrangement of teeth as compared to the original treatment plan; and transmit the revised treatment plan for fabrication of one or more orthodontic appliances after the user has approved the revised treatment plan displayed on the screen [0037].)
and sending, to a client device, the notification for display. (Unklesbay discloses the resulting treatment plan(s) may then be transmitted back to the practitioner for interactive display and selection [0005].)
Unklesbay does not disclose the dental appliances being from a preplanned series which is met by Chekhonin:
…preplanned series of dental appliances…from the preplanned series of dental appliances, (Chekhonin teaches the method… may need just the name of the dental professional in order to invoke a predefined set of dental-professional specific preferences (e.g., looking up the dental professional's predefined preferences). The dental professional and/or patient may also specify which dental/orthodontic product(s) to use (e.g., which type of orthodontic product to use), which may correspond to properties that effect treatment, including the number of stages to use, the rate of movement of the teeth, etc. [0030]. FIG. 7A is an example of a display for simultaneously showing, in real time, multiple treatment plans, including filters for toggling between treatment plans that are variations of fixed-length (e.g., “partial”) treatment plans having a preset/predetermined number of stages [00127].)
determining,…a treatment modification for the patient that adjusts a timing of transitions between already planned treatment stages of the series of sequential treatment stages in a manner that causes the patient to progress through the dental treatment plan faster than initially planned (Chekhonin teaches the consultation mode may also include information about the cost and/or timing of the treatment plans (including the number of stages, etc.) [0265]. The methods and apparatuses described herein may improve treatment planning, including potentially increasing the speed at which treatment plans may be completed,…[0006]. A treatment plan may include a plurality of different stages during which the patient's teeth are moved from an initial position to a final position; a dental aligner (e.g., a shell aligner) or other orthodontic device may be made to correspond to each stage, and worn in the sequence defined by the treatment plan to move the patients teeth from their initial position to a final position [0007].)
…using existing appliances…using the existing appliances… (Chekhonin teaches a method of manufacturing a series of aligners for a patient's teeth may include: transmitting a model of the patient's teeth to a remote site; transmitting a list of tooth movement prescription information …switching, in real time, between images of the teeth at the final stages for different treatment plans within the array of treatment plans …and transmitting a selected one of the treatment plans for fabrication… [0050]. The apparatus and method may provide multiple, pre-calculated full treatment plans in which at least some of plans have different number of stages (e.g., different time to completion, wherein each stage is an aligner that may be worn for a predetermined, and continuous, amount of time), and many (if not all) of the treatment plans may have different final tooth positions that address some or all of the treatment goals [0034]. The Examiner interprets the treatment plan being used in the fabrication as the appliances being pre-existing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate the dental appliances being from a preplanned series as taught by Chekhonin. This modification would create a method which may improve treatment planning, including potentially increasing the speed at which treatment plans may be completed, as well as providing greater choices and control to the dental professional, and allowing improved patient involvement in the treatment planning process (see Chekhonin, ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 3, Unklesbay and Chekhonin teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
the patient data comprises at least one of image data of a dentition of the patient, biomarker data indicative of changes in the dentition, pressure data indicative of a level of pressure exerted by the dentition on a dental appliance, or data indicative of an electrical parameter associated with a position of a tooth with respect to a dental appliance. (Unklesbay teaches the indication is digital 3D model of the patient’s dentition [0014, see Fig. 4A-4D].)
Regarding Claim 4, Unklesbay and Chekhonin teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
the one or more progress indicators comprise at least one of indicators of a position of a tooth or indicators of a level of movement of a tooth. (Unklesbay teaches having both a beginning position and a final target position for each tooth, the process can next define a treatment path or tooth path for the motion of each tooth. This can include defining a plurality of planned successive tooth arrangements for moving teeth along a treatment path from an initial arrangement to a selected final arrangement [0068].)
Regarding Claim 8, Unklesbay discloses:
A method for optimizing a dental treatment plan, the method comprising: receiving, at a remote computing device, patient data comprising one or more progress indicators associated with a dental treatment plan for a patient; (Unklesbay discloses the present disclosure provides a computer implemented method for reviewing an orthodontic treatment plan for a patient's dental arch having a current arrangement of teeth, the method comprising the steps of:…[0010]. A non-transient, computer-readable medium containing program instructions for causing a computer to: receive, from a remote site, receiving a request after at least one stage of the treatment plan has occurred or the dental arch has reached an arrangement of teeth different than the current arrangement [0037]. Often, computer readable media are provided as part of a computing device. The computing device may have one or more processors, …such as a display,…[0057]. [H]aving both a beginning position and a final target position for each tooth, the process can next define a treatment path or tooth path for the motion of each tooth. This can include defining a plurality of planned successive tooth arrangements for moving teeth along a treatment path from an initial arrangement to a selected final arrangement [0068].)
wherein the dental treatment plan comprises a series of sequential treatment stages, each treatment stage associated with a particular dental appliance… (Unklesbay discloses computer readable media are provided as part of a computing device. The computing device may have one or more processors, …such as a display,… [0057]. The process includes receiving information regarding the orthodontic condition of a patient and/or practitioner preferences for treatment and subsequently generating an original treatment plan for repositioning the patient's teeth (Step 202). This original treatment plan may represent the beginning of orthodontic treatment or may represent a new phase of treatment commenced after the patient has undergone some orthodontic or dental treatment. At some point after approval of the original treatment plan, the practitioner determines that a revision is required. In other embodiments, the revised treatment plan includes a different appliance than the original treatment plan, such as a switch from braces to aligners, or a switch from aligners to a retention appliance, or a switch from restorative dental treatment to orthodontic treatment [0061-63].)
processing, at the remote computing device, the patient data to determine a level of progression associated with the dental treatment plan based on the one or more progress indicators; (Unklesbay discloses a determination that the progression of a patient's teeth is deviating or not tracking with the original treatment plan can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Deviations can be detected by visual and/or clinical inspection of the patient's teeth. For example, a deviation from the original treatment plan may become apparent when the patient tries to wear a next appliance in a series and fails to properly seat the appliance given the difference between the actual tooth arrangement and the planned arrangement [0034].)
modifying, at the remote computing device, the dental treatment plan in response to the determined level of progression; (Unklesbay discloses if the first iteration of treatment did not complete the desired movement of the patient's teeth, the practitioner may determine whether or not the treatment is still progressing according to plan. If a determination is made that the patient's actual arrangement of teeth deviates from a planned arrangement and that the patient's teeth are not progressing as planned, a change or correction in the course of treatment can be selected, for example, by generating a revised treatment plan… [0077-78].)
and generating a notification of the modified dental treatment plan (Unklesbay discloses each stage includes a planned arrangement of teeth in the dental arch and at least one stage includes a modified arrangement of teeth as compared to the original treatment plan; and transmit the revised treatment plan for fabrication of one or more orthodontic appliances after the user has approved the revised treatment plan displayed on the screen [0037].)
and sending, to a client device, the notification for display. (Unklesbay discloses the resulting treatment plan(s) may then be transmitted back to the practitioner for interactive display and selection [0005].)
Unklesbay does not disclose the dental appliances being from a preplanned series which is met by Chekhonin:
wherein the modifying comprises adjusting a timing of transitions between already planned treatment stages of the series of sequential treatment stages in a manner that causes the patient to progress through the dental treatment plan faster than initially planned… (Chekhonin teaches the consultation mode may also include information about the cost and/or timing of the treatment plans (including the number of stages, etc.) [0265]. The methods and apparatuses described herein may improve treatment planning, including potentially increasing the speed at which treatment plans may be completed,…[0006]. A treatment plan may include a plurality of different stages during which the patient's teeth are moved from an initial position to a final position; a dental aligner (e.g., a shell aligner) or other orthodontic device may be made to correspond to each stage, and worn in the sequence defined by the treatment plan to move the patients teeth from their initial position to a final position [0007].)
…in a preplanned series of dental appliances… from the preplanned series of dental appliances; (Chekhonin teaches the method…may need just the name of the dental professional in order to invoke a predefined set of dental-professional specific preferences (e.g., looking up the dental professional's predefined preferences). The dental professional and/or patient may also specify which dental/orthodontic product(s) to use (e.g., which type of orthodontic product to use), which may correspond to properties that effect treatment, including the number of stages to use, the rate of movement of the teeth, etc. [0030]. FIG. 7A is an example of a display for simultaneously showing, in real time, multiple treatment plans, including filters for toggling between treatment plans that are variations of fixed-length (e.g., “partial”) treatment plans having a preset/predetermined number of stages [00127].)
…using existing appliances…using the existing appliances… (Chekhonin teaches a method of manufacturing a series of aligners for a patient's teeth may include:… transmitting a selected one of the treatment plans for fabrication… [0050]. The apparatus and method may provide multiple, pre-calculated full treatment plans in which at least some of plans have different number of stages (e.g., different time to completion, wherein each stage is an aligner that may be worn for a predetermined, and continuous, amount of time), and many (if not all) of the treatment plans may have different final tooth positions that address some or all of the treatment goals [0034]. The Examiner interprets the treatment plan being used in the fabrication as the appliances being pre-existing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate the dental appliances being from a preplanned series as taught by Chekhonin. This modification would create a method which may improve treatment planning, including potentially increasing the speed at which treatment plans may be completed, as well as providing greater choices and control to the dental professional, and allowing improved patient involvement in the treatment planning process (see Chekhonin, ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 11, Unklesbay discloses:
A method comprising: accessing, at a remote computing device, a dental treatment plan for a patient comprising a series of sequential treatment stages, each treatment stage associated with a particular dental appliance in a…series of dental appliances; (Unklesbay discloses the present disclosure provides a computer implemented method for reviewing an orthodontic treatment plan for a patient's dental arch having a current arrangement of teeth, the method comprising the steps of:…[0010]. A non-transient, computer-readable medium containing program instructions for causing a computer to: receive, from a remote site, receiving a request after at least one stage of the treatment plan has occurred or the dental arch has reached an arrangement of teeth different than the current arrangement [0037]. Often, computer readable media are provided as part of a computing device. The computing device may have one or more processors, …such as a display,…[0057]. [H]aving both a beginning position and a final target position for each tooth, the process can next define a treatment path or tooth path for the motion of each tooth. This can include defining a plurality of planned successive tooth arrangements for moving teeth along a treatment path from an initial arrangement to a selected final arrangement [0068]. The Examiner interprets the tooth arrangement data as data associated with treatment stages of the plan.)
receiving, at the remote computing device, patient data associated with one or more stages of the dental treatment plan; (Unklesbay discloses having both a beginning position and a final target position for each tooth, the process can next define a treatment path or tooth path for the motion of each tooth. This can include defining a plurality of planned successive tooth arrangements for moving teeth along a treatment path from an initial arrangement to a selected final arrangement [0068]. The Examiner interprets the tooth arrangement data as data associated with stages of the plan.)
processing, at the remote computing device, the patient data to identify one or more progress indicators of treatment progress with respect to the dental treatment plan; (Unklesbay discloses the request for revision includes the identification of the current stage of treatment (Step 208). The identification can be a new scan or physical model of the patient's teeth or may be a notation in the request marking the last stage of treatment successfully completed by the patient. The identification of the current arrangement can be used to generate the revised treatment plan (Step 210)…[0064]. The Examiner interprets the current arrangement of the patient’s teeth as the progress indicator.)
determining, at the remote computing device, based on the one or more progress indicators, a level of progress associated with the dental treatment plan; (Unklesbay discloses a determination that the progression of a patient's teeth is deviating or not tracking with the original treatment plan can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Deviations can be detected by visual and/or clinical inspection of the patient's teeth. For example, a deviation from the original treatment plan may become apparent when the patient tries to wear a next appliance in a series and fails to properly seat the appliance given the difference between the actual tooth arrangement and the planned arrangement [0034]. The Examiner interprets the progression of the patient’s teeth movement as the level of progress.)
and performing one or more actions based at least in part on the determined level of progress, wherein performing the one or more actions comprises: determining a treatment modification to the dental treatment plan (Unklesbay discloses if a determination is made that the patient's actual arrangement of teeth deviates from a planned arrangement and that the patient’s teeth are not progressing as planned, a change or correction in the course of treatment can be selected, for example, by generating a revised treatment plan. In particular, current tooth positions of the patient can be obtained from the patient any one or more phases and compared to models of the patient's teeth according to an earlier or original treatment plan. Where teeth are determined to be deviating from the planned treatment plan, modification or revision of treatment plan can occur [0076]. The modification of the treatment plan is interpreted as performing an action.)
using existing appliances from the preplanned series of dental appliances, the treatment modification comprising advancing the patient to a subsequent treatment stage in the series of sequential treatment stages… or retaining the patient in a current treatment stage of the series of sequential treatment stages beyond the preplanned advancement time… (Unklesbay discloses after wearing an appliance for a prescribed period of time, the patient may reengage with the practitioner who may evaluate the result of the first iteration of the original treatment plan… in the event that the first iteration of treatment has resulted in satisfactory final occlusion of the patient's teeth, the treatment may be ended. However, if the first iteration of treatment did not complete the desired movement of the patient's teeth, the practitioner may determine whether or not the treatment is still progressing according to plan. If a determination is made that the patient's actual arrangement of teeth deviates from a planned arrangement and that the patient's teeth are not progressing as planned, a change or correction in the course of treatment can be selected, for example, by generating a revised treatment plan…this exemplary type of correction is redirecting treatment back to a particular stage of the original treatment plan… a revised treatment plan can include essentially “re-starting” treatment… [0077-78].)
generating, at the remote computing device, a notification indicating at least the determined treatment modification; (Unklesbay discloses display on a screen, a digital representation of at least a portion of the original treatment plan and a revised treatment plan for user approval, the revised treatment plan including one or more stages of treatment, wherein each stage includes a planned arrangement of teeth in the dental arch and at least one stage includes a modified arrangement of teeth as compared to the original treatment plan; and transmit the revised treatment plan for fabrication of one or more orthodontic appliances after the user has approved the revised treatment plan displayed on the screen [0037].)
and sending, to a client device, the notification for display. (Unklesbay discloses the resulting treatment plan(s) may then be transmitted back to the practitioner for interactive display and selection [0005].)
Unklesbay does not disclose the dental appliances being from a preplanned series which is met by Chekhonin:
determining a treatment modification to the dental treatment plan that adjusts a timing of transitions between already planned treatment stages of the series of sequential treatment stages in a manner that causes the patient to progress through the dental treatment plan faster or slower than initially planned (Chekhonin teaches the consultation mode may also include information about the cost and/or timing of the treatment plans (including the number of stages, etc.) [0265]. The methods and apparatuses described herein may improve treatment planning, including potentially increasing the speed at which treatment plans may be completed,… [0006]. A treatment plan may include a plurality of different stages during which the patient's teeth are moved from an initial position to a final position; a dental aligner (e.g., a shell aligner) or other orthodontic device may be made to correspond to each stage, and worn in the sequence defined by the treatment plan to move the patients teeth from their initial position to a final position [0007].)
…in a preplanned series of dental appliances… from the preplanned series of dental appliances; (Chekhonin teaches the method…may need just the name of the dental professional in order to invoke a predefined set of dental-professional specific preferences (e.g., looking up the dental professional's predefined preferences). The dental professional and/or patient may also specify which dental/orthodontic product(s) to use (e.g., which type of orthodontic product to use), which may correspond to properties that effect treatment, including the number of stages to use, the rate of movement of the teeth, etc. [0030]. FIG. 7A is an example of a display for simultaneously showing, in real time, multiple treatment plans, including filters for toggling between treatment plans that are variations of fixed…treatment plans having a preset/predetermined number of stages [00127].)
…using existing appliances…using the existing appliances… (Chekhonin teaches a method of manufacturing a series of aligners for a patient's teeth may include:… transmitting a selected one of the treatment plans for fabrication… [0050]. The apparatus and method may provide multiple, pre-calculated full treatment plans in which at least some of plans have different number of stages (e.g., different time to completion, wherein each stage is an aligner that may be worn for a predetermined, and continuous, amount of time), and many (if not all) of the treatment plans may have different final tooth positions that address some or all of the treatment goals [0034]. The Examiner interprets the treatment plan being used in the fabrication as the appliances being pre-existing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate the dental appliances being from a preplanned series as taught by Chekhonin. This modification would create a method which may improve treatment planning, including potentially increasing the speed at which treatment plans may be completed, as well as providing greater choices and control to the dental professional, and allowing improved patient involvement in the treatment planning process (see Chekhonin, ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 15, Unklesbay and Chekhonin teach limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 11 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
the patient data comprise at least one of image data of a dentition of the patient, biomarker data indicative of changes in the dentition, pressure data indicative of a level of pressure exerted by the dentition on a dental appliance, or data indicative of an electrical parameter associated with a position of a tooth with respect to a dental appliance; (Unklesbay discloses the indication is digital 3D model of the patient’s dentition [0014, see Fig. 4A-4D].)
and the one or more progress indicators comprises at least one of indicators of a position of a tooth or indicators of a level of movement of a tooth. (Unklesbay discloses having both a beginning position and a final target position for each tooth, the process can next define a treatment path or tooth path for the motion of each tooth. This can include defining a plurality of planned successive tooth arrangements for moving teeth along a treatment path from an initial arrangement to a selected final arrangement [0068].)
Regarding Claim 18, Unklesbay and Chekhonin teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 11 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
processing the patient data to identify one or more oral health conditions of the patient; wherein the one or more actions are performed based at least in part on the one or more oral health conditions. (Unklesbay discloses the user interface 300 can also offer malocclusion overlays, displayed by shading on the digital 3D models of teeth to represent the difference in tooth orientation, position, or geometry between the arrangement of teeth in a given stage of treatment and the current or target arrangement of the teeth. Malocclusion overlays may also be offered between the digital 3D models of two intermediate stages i.e., between the current stage and the target. The user interface 300 may also offer tools to adjust the shading of the malocclusion overlays [0075]. The Examiner interprets a malocclusion position as an oral health condition.)
Regarding Claim 20, Unklesbay and Chekhonin teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 11 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
a first subset of dental appliances in the…series of dental appliances was manufactured at a first time, wherein a second subset of dental appliances in the … series of dental appliances was not manufactured at the first time, and wherein performing the one or more actions further comprises initiating manufacturing of the second subset of dental appliances in the series of… dental appliances. (Unklesbay discloses at some point after approval of the original treatment plan, the practitioner determines that a revision is required…this determination occurs after the treatment according to the original plan begins and following administration of appliances to the patient [0062]. A user may then request a revision to the treatment plan (Step 206)…the revised treatment plan includes a different appliance than the original treatment plan, such as a switch from braces to aligners, or a switch from aligners to a retention appliance, or a switch from restorative dental treatment to orthodontic treatment. The request for revision may be delivered to the remote appliance manufacturer [0063-64].)
Unklesbay does not disclose the following limitations met by Chekhonin:
… in the preplanned series of dental appliances…(Chekhonin teaches the method… may need just the name of the dental professional in order to invoke a predefined set of dental-professional specific preferences (e.g., looking up the dental professional's predefined preferences). The dental professional and/or patient may also specify which dental/orthodontic product(s) to use (e.g., which type of orthodontic product to use), which may correspond to properties that effect treatment, including the number of stages to use, the rate of movement of the teeth, etc. [0030]. FIG. 7A is an example of a display for simultaneously showing, in real time, multiple treatment plans, including filters for toggling between treatment plans that are variations of fixed-length (e.g., “partial”) treatment plans having a preset/predetermined number of stages [00127].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate the dental appliances being from a preplanned series as taught by Chekhonin. This modification would create a method which may improve treatment planning, including potentially increasing the speed at which treatment plans may be completed, as well as providing greater choices and control to the dental professional, and allowing improved patient involvement in the treatment planning process (see Chekhonin, ¶ 0003).
Claims 2, 5-6, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Unklesbay and Chekhonin in view of Sachdeva et al. (US 20200066391 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Unklesbay and Chekhonin teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
…to wear a subsequent dental appliance corresponding to the subsequent treatment stage (Unklesbay teaches creating a refined treatment plan includes changing from a first orthodontic appliance to a second, different orthodontic appliance [0018]. The revised treatment plan may include the same orthodontic appliance (i.e., same treatment modality) as the original treatment plan. In other embodiments, the revised treatment plan includes a different appliance than the original treatment plan, such as a switch from braces to aligners, or a switch from aligners to a retention appliance, or a switch from restorative dental treatment to orthodontic treatment [0063].)
Unklesbay and Chekhonin do not teach the notification going to a patient system which is met by Sachdeva:
… wherein the client device is a patient device, the notification comprising instructions to the patient (Sachdeva teaches the user device may be the patient’s personal device and may include such as a mobile phone, a laptop, a desktop, a tablet, a PC and the like [0202]. When an update is registered, the VCN system 1500 may detect the update and send push notification to the app alerting the patient to a change in the roadmap [0204]. The Examiner interprets the user device to be the client/patient device.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate notifying the patient system of a change as taught by Sachdeva. This modification would create a system and method capable of providing strategic approaches for optimizing the delivery of highly reliable care within a system (see Sachdeva, ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 13, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 2 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding Claim 5, Unklesbay discloses the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
determining the level of progress associated with the dental treatment plan comprises providing the patient data…the level of progress associated with the dental treatment plan. (Unklesbay discloses a determination that the progression of a patient's teeth is deviating or not tracking with the original treatment plan can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Deviations can be detected by visual and/or clinical inspection of the patient's teeth. For example, a deviation from the original treatment plan may become apparent when the patient tries to wear a next appliance in a series and fails to properly seat the appliance given the difference between the actual tooth arrangement and the planned arrangement [0034].)
Unklesbay and Chekhonin do not teach the following limitations met by Sachdeva:
as input to one or more machine learning models and receiving, as output from the one or more machine learning models,… (Sachdeva teaches the haptic feedback may be the preferred output modality as it may be useful to highlight specific teeth positions on the device display. For example, when the doctor moves individual teeth on the screen to various positions during treatment planning, such as using machine learning techniques…[0193].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate the use of a machine learning model as taught by Sachdeva. This modification would create a system and method capable of providing strategic approaches for optimizing the delivery of highly reliable care within a system that is self-learning, resilient, and anti-fragile (see Sachdeva, ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 6, Unklesbay and Chekhonin teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Unklesbay and Chekhonin do not teach the following limitation met by Sachdeva:
determining the level of progress associated with the dental treatment plan comprises comparing the one or more progress indicators of the received patient data to historical progress indicators of historical patient data. (Sachdeva teaches a method and a computer-implemented system for an orthodontic care management system is provided,… automatically registers the various operator defined states by best fit to assess care progress in terms of measured displacement changes and also provide response statistics and analytics against a comparative relational database from historical records of similarly treated patients [0034]. The treatment plan may be automatically generated based on patient data,…and some historical data derived from the memory unit 102a-8, wherein the historical data may be related to… other patient treatment results, success and failure records of treatment strategies and the like [0166].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate the progress level being determined by comparing progress indicators to historical indicators of patient data as taught by Sachdeva. This modification would create a system and method capable of providing strategic approaches for optimizing the delivery of highly reliable care within a system that is self-learning, resilient, and anti-fragile (see Sachdeva, ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 17, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 6 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding Claim 16, Unklesbay and Chekhonin teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 11 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
wherein at least one of a) identifying the one or more progress indicators of treatment progress with respect to the dental treatment plan or b) determining the level of progress associated with the dental treatment plan (Unklesbay discloses a determination that the progression of a patient's teeth is deviating or not tracking with the original treatment plan can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Deviations can be detected by visual and/or clinical inspection of the patient's teeth. For example, a deviation from the original treatment plan may become apparent when the patient tries to wear a next appliance in a series and fails to properly seat the appliance given the difference between the actual tooth arrangement and the planned arrangement [0034].)
…at least one of the one or more progress indicators or the level of progress associated with the dental treatment plan. (Unklesbay discloses having both a beginning position and a final target position for each tooth, the process can next define a treatment path or tooth path for the motion of each tooth. This can include defining a plurality of planned successive tooth arrangements for moving teeth along a treatment path from an initial arrangement to a selected final arrangement [0068].)
Unklesbay and Chekhonin do not teach the following limitations met by Sachdeva:
is performed by processing the patient data using one or more machine learning models that output (Sachdeva teaches the haptic feedback may be the preferred output modality as it may be useful to highlight specific teeth positions on the device display. For example, when the doctor moves individual teeth on the screen to various positions during treatment planning, such as using machine learning techniques…[0193].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate the use of a machine learning model as taught by Sachdeva. This modification would create a system and method capable of providing strategic approaches for optimizing the delivery of highly reliable care within a system that is self-learning, resilient, and anti-fragile (see Sachdeva, ¶ 0003).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Unklesbay and Chekhonin in view of Salah et al. (US 20190125493 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Unklesbay and Chekhonin teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
the dental treatment plan comprises an assessment schedule comprising one or more patient assessments that are each separated by predefined time intervals, (Unklesbay discloses after wearing an appliance for a prescribed period of time, the patient may reengage with the practitioner who may evaluate the result of the first iteration of the original treatment plan [0077].)
Unklesbay and Chekhonin do not teach shortening or lengthening the assessment schedule which is met by Salah:
and wherein the treatment modification further comprises modifying the assessment schedule by shortening or lengthening one or more of the predefined time intervals. (Salah teaches the time interval Δt is determined by the orthodontist, according to a checkup schedule. Depending on the evolution of the position of the teeth, the orthodontist may modify this schedule and, consequently, modify the time interval Δt. In one embodiment, the method for checking the positioning of teeth according to the invention is executed several times, the time intervals between each execution being able to be identical or different [0313].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate shortening or lengthening the assessment schedule as taught by Salah. This modification would create a system and method which provides precise and effective monitoring of the position of the patient’s teeth (see Salah, ¶ 0504).
Regarding Claim 10, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 7 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Unklesbay and Chekhonin in view of Levin et al. (US 20190333622 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Unklesbay and Chekhonin teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
wherein the notification is further sent to a dental professional system associated with a health care provider, (Unklesbay discloses FIG. 3 is a user interface 300 to review and approve an orthodontic treatment plan, displaying a digital 3D model of teeth 310 in each proposed stage of treatment. The user interface may be provided on electronic display device 16 [0076]. Different user groups could electronically access the user interfaces 300 and 400, including technicians, doctors,…[0087, see also Fig. 4A]. The user interface is interpreted as the dental professional system.)
wherein the dental treatment plan comprises a…and orthodontic treatment plan, (Unklesbay discloses the method further includes providing an original orthodontic treatment plan, wherein the providing includes the steps of: receiving a digital representation of the patient's malocclusion; and creating a target final arrangement of teeth to be achieved at the end of the treatment plan [0033].)
Unklesbay and Chekhonin do not teach the use of palatal expansion which is met by Levin:
wherein the dental treatment plan comprises a combined palatal expansion…and wherein advancing the patient to the subsequent treatment stage comprises advancing from a palatal expansion treatment stage to an orthodontic treatment stage. (Levin teaches executing the orthodontic treatment planning instructions may include generating one or more orthodontic treatment plans comprising a sequence of orthodontic appliances (e.g., orthodontic aligners, palatal expanders, etc.) configured to be worn by the patient in a predetermined order. The orthodontic treatment plan may also include instructions for modifying the teeth before/during wearing of the orthodontic appliances (e.g., interproximal reduction, applying attachments, etc.) [0016].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate a palatal expansion prior to the orthodontic treatment as taught by Levin. This modification would create a system and method for treatment planning in a timely manner (see Levin, ¶ 0006).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Unklesbay, Chekhonin, Sachdeva, and Levin in view of Lemchen et al. (US 20160220330 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Unklesbay and Chekhonin teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 11 above. Unklesbay and Chekhonin do not teach the following limitations met by Sachdeva:
… wherein the patient data comprises at least one of a three-dimensional (3D) point cloud or a two-dimensional (2D) image of a dentition of the patient, the method further comprising: (Sachdeva teaches a method and computer-implemented system for receiving 2D images and or 3D images photographic laser white light, infrared, thermal images X-ray, MRI, PET scan, ultrasound or dynamic video images of the facial dental structures [0062].)
based on processing at least one of the 3D point cloud or the 2D image of the dentition of the patient; (Sachdeva teaches the modification to the patient data may include morphological analysis and 2D-to-3D conversion, such as by building 3D models using image conversion tools known in the art [0184]. When first invoked by the patient, SC1 1801 prompts the patient to upload their best facial image with a smile in which teeth show. SC1 1801 then analyses the picture to verify that it is indeed a human face in which teeth are showing [0216].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate the analysis of a 2D model as taught by Sachdeva. This modification would create a system and method capable of providing strategic approaches for optimizing the delivery of highly reliable care within a system that is self-learning, resilient, and anti-fragile (see Sachdeva, ¶ 0003).
Unklesbay, Chekhonin, and Sachdeva do not teach the following limitation met by Levin:
the dental treatment plan calls for dental auxiliaries on one or more teeth of the patient, (Levin teaches one or more auxiliary appliance components as described herein (e.g., elastics, wires, springs, bars, arch expanders, palatal expanders, twin blocks, occlusal blocks, bite ramps, mandibular advancement splints, bite plates, pontics, hooks, brackets, headgear tubes, bumper tubes, palatal bars, frameworks, pin-and-tube apparatuses, buccal shields, buccinator bows, wire shields, lingual flanges and pads, lip pads or bumpers, protrusions, divots, etc.) …[0123].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate the use of dental auxiliaries as taught by Levin. This modification would create a system and method for treatment planning in a timely manner (see Levin, ¶ 0006).
Unklesbay, Chekhonin, Sachdeva, and Levin do not teach identifying the auxiliary is missing which is met by Lemchen:
… identifying a missing dental auxiliary… (Lemchen teaches the designated location or position of the bracket on the corresponding tooth and type of the bracket is stored in each corresponding RFID and/or digital patient record. This allows the practitioner to select the correct corresponding bracket needed for replacement or additional missing bracket needed to be drawn from an inventory, and to reposition the original bracket or replacement bracket, if provided, precisely on the intended position of the tooth by remaking and using a new jig for the dislodged, broken or missing bracket [0088]. The Examiner interprets the bracket as a dental auxiliary.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and method for receiving a dental treatment plan and progress indicators and determining how to modify the treatment plan based on progress as disclosed by Unklesbay to incorporate the identification of a missing dental auxiliary as taught by Lemchen. This modification would create a system and method capable of reaffixing to the tooth at precisely the same designated position on the tooth as determined by the orthodontist at the time of determining the ideal occlusion (see Lemchen, ¶ 0011).
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 101 to Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-20, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the amendments above.
Applicant argues the amended claims do not recite concepts that explicitly fall into the abstract idea exception categories. Contrary to the Examiner's assertion, the claims are not directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, nor are they directed to commercial or legal interactions, fundamental economic practices, or managing relationships or interactions between people. Rather, the amended claims are specifically directed to a technical solution for optimizing dental treatment through a remote computing device that dynamically adjusts treatment timing based on patient progress data, enabling patients to progress through treatment faster than initially planned using existing appliances from a preplanned series of dental appliances. The claims recite specific technical operations performed by a remote computing device-accessing treatment plans, receiving and processing patient progress indicators, determining treatment modifications that adjust timing of transitions between treatment stages, generating notifications, and sending those notifications to client devices for display. These are not activities that organize human behavior but rather technical processes executed by computing devices to improve dental treatment systems. The claims do not merely recite a business method or a way of managing interactions between healthcare providers and patients; instead, they recite a specific technical implementation involving data processing and communication between computing devices. This is not an abstract concept but rather a specific technological improvement to dental treatment systems (see Applicant’s Remarks, p. 10-11).
Regarding (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued steps of receiving and processing patient progress indicators, determining treatment modifications that adjust timing of transitions between treatment stages, generating notifications, and sending those notifications are all limitations that a person could reasonably carry out by following a set of rules or instructions and do not require the use of a computer or any technology. It is important to note that the text within the parentheses stating social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions are provided as examples and not an exclusive listing and that the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility on p. 5 states certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping.
Furthermore, Assuming, arguendo, that the present invention achieves the improvement of, for example, improving and optimizing dental treatment plans (see Applicant’s disclosure, ¶ 0044), this represents an improvement to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity rather than a technological improvement and/or the functioning of the computer itself. This is because the argued problem of improving and optimizing dental treatment plans has existed since long before the advent of any type of computer technology. That is, the claimed invention may improve the workflow of a dental worker and by improving their ability to plan treatments, but the problem has existed since before computers, and in the present application it is only improved by virtue of using a computer as a tool to perform the process.
Applicant argues assuming the claims somehow do explicitly recite a judicial exception, each of the claims integrates such recitation into a practical application and, therefore, should be deemed to be not "directed to" the patent- ineligible judicial exception in accordance with the second prong of Step 2A. The practical application lies in optimizing dental treatment by enabling a remote computing device to dynamically adjust the timing of transitions between already planned treatment stages, causing patients to progress through dental treatment plans faster than initially planned while using existing appliances from the preplanned series of dental appliances, as described in paragraphs [0025], [0031], [0038], and [0045] of the Specification. The techniques described in the Specification enable improved patient outcomes and treatment efficiency by analyzing progress indicators at a remote computing device and determining treatment modifications that accelerate treatment timelines without requiring new appliance fabrication-which is achieved by advancing patients to subsequent treatment stages before preplanned advancement times using existing appliances and sending notifications to client devices for display (p. 11).
Regarding (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Assuming, arguendo, that the argued limitations (dynamically adjust the timing of transitions between already planned treatment stages, causing patients to progress through dental treatment plans faster than initially planned) do recite an improvement, the potential improvement is to the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”. There is no indication in the instant disclosure that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology for the outlined problem statement. Here, the improvement is to assisting dental workers through recommendations. The instant application and claim language fail to detail how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
Applicant argues in light of the amendments, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite specific technical elements including a remote computing device that accesses treatment plans, receives and processes patient progress data, determines treatment modifications that adjust timing of transitions to accelerate treatment using existing preplanned appliances, generates notifications, and sends those notifications to client devices for display. These elements impose meaningful limits on any alleged judicial exception and integrate the claims into a practical application of improving dental treatment efficiency. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter under the second prong of Step 2A (p. 12-13).
Regarding (c), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited steps of accessing treatment plans and progress data, determining modifications, and generating a notification are all abstract steps that could be done by a person mentally and/or using a pen and paper. There is nothing in the claims that require the use of a computer other than as an element through which to carry out the abstract idea by using the term "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the step of sending those notifications to client devices for display is an insignificant extra solution activity because it is tangentially related to the invention and not the inventive aspect of the claimed invention. For instance, examples of an insignificant application include i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Applicant argues the claims add significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. The claims recite an unconventional technical solution that provides a specific improvement to dental treatment technology. Specifically, the combination of elements-including a remote computing device that determines treatment modifications adjusting timing of transitions between already planned treatment stages to cause patients to progress faster using existing preplanned appliances, and sending notifications to client devices for display represents significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. This ordered combination of elements is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, but rather provides a specific technological improvement to dental treatment systems that enables dynamic treatment optimization without requiring fabrication of new appliances (p. 13).
Regarding (d), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited steps of accessing treatment plans and progress data, determining modifications, and generating a notification are all abstract steps that could be done by a person mentally and/or using a pen and paper. There is nothing in the claims that require the use of a computer other than as an element through which to carry out the abstract idea by using the term "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) states “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. Further, as stated above in (a), the claimed invention cannot provide a specific technological improvement to dental treatment systems because there is no technological improvement present. These limitations are directed to the abstract idea and therefore are not considered for being well-understood, routine, or conventional, which is an analysis for assessing additional elements in step 2A prong one and step 2B. The only recited additional element of the remote computing device is a generic computer component and the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)
Applicant argues the claimed system enables patients to progress through a treatment plan faster or slower than initially planned based on collected patient data, which addresses challenges of dental treatment plans by providing systems and methods to further personalize and optimize a dental treatment plan while limiting lifestyle invasiveness. See Specification, paragraphs [0042]-[0043]. The Specification further explains that embodiments provide significant advantages over traditional dental treatment plans by notifying a health care provider and/or patient of a level of progression with respect to a dental treatment plan and providing modifications to the dental treatment plan based on the level of progression, thereby improving treatment plan efficacy and reducing costs by reducing the number of consecutive refinements made to a treatment plan during treatment. See id., paragraph [0044]. These descriptions demonstrate that the claimed combination provides improvements and advantages over conventional dental treatment systems and is not routine or conventional in the art (p. 13).
Regarding (d), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of notifying a healthcare provider with a of a level of progress is directed to the abstract idea which does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(III) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”). There is no indication in the instant disclosure that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology for the outlined problem statement. The instant application and claim language fail to detail how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103 to Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-20, Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection has been made in light of the amendments, rejecting the independent claims over Unklesbay in view of Chekhonin.
Conclusion
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 OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights