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 12/20/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 and 03/21/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim 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 1-20 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, 9-10, and 12-20 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 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;
receiving patient data comprising one or more progress indicators associated with the dental treatment plan;
determining, 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 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, or retaining the patient in a treatment current stage of the series of sequential treatment stages beyond the preplanned advancement time;
and generating a notification indicating the determined treatment modification.
Claim 8 further recites:
receiving patient data comprising one or more progress indicators associated with a dental treatment plan for a patient;
processing the patient data to determine a level of progression associated with the dental treatment plan based on the one or more progress indicators;
modifying the dental treatment plan in response to the determined level of progression;
and generating a notification of the modified dental treatment plan.
Claim 11 further recites:
accessing 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;
receiving patient data associated with one or more stages of the dental treatment plan;
processing the patient data to identify one or more progress indicators of treatment progress with respect to the dental treatment plan;
determining, based on the one or more progress indicators, a level of progress associated with the dental treatment plan;
and performing one or more actions based at least in part on the determined level of progress.
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, 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, 9-10, and 12-20 include other limitations directed toward the abstract idea. For example, Claims 2 and 13 recite the notification comprising instructions for which dental appliance the patient should wear, 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 9 recites the modification of the plan comprises advancing or retaining the patient in a stage, Claim 12 recites the modification to the treatment plan comprises advancing or retaining the patient, 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. 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, 9-10, and 12-20 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-7, 9-10, and 12-20 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 there are no additional elements recited in the independent claims. Therefore, Claims 1, 11, and 17 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 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. 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, there are no additional elements recited in the independent Claims 1, 8, and 11 and therefore, the claims cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Dependent Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12, 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 9 recites the modification of the plan comprises advancing or retaining the patient in a stage, Claim 12 recites the modification to the treatment plan comprises advancing or retaining the patient, 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.
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, 9-10, and 12-20 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 1-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 101 are being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11-12, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Unklesbay et al. (US 20250090273 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 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 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 [0061-62]. 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].)
receiving 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, 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 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, or retaining the patient in a treatment current stage of the series of sequential treatment stages beyond the preplanned advancement time; (Unklesbay teaches 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].)
and generating a notification indicating 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].)
Regarding Claim 3, Unklesbay discloses 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 discloses the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
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 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 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]. [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].)
processing 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 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].)
Regarding Claim 9, Unklesbay discloses the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 8 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
modifying the dental treatment plan in response to the determined level of progression comprises advancing a patient associated with the patient data to a subsequent stage of the dental treatment plan or retaining the patient within a current stage of the dental treatment plan. (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].)
Regarding Claim 12, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 9 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding Claim 11, Unklesbay discloses:
A method comprising: accessing 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]. [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 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 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, 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. (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.)
Regarding Claim 15, Unklesbay discloses the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 11 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 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 discloses 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 discloses 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, and wherein performing the one or more actions comprises determining whether to order a 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].)
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 2, 5-6, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Unklesbay et al. (US 20250090273 A1) in view of Sachdeva et al. (US 20200066391 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Unklesbay discloses 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 or to continue to wear a current dental appliance corresponding to the current 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 does not disclose the notification going to a patient system which is met by Sachdeva:
… wherein the notification is sent to a patient system, 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].)
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:
processing the patient data to determine 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 does not disclose 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 discloses the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Unklesbay does not disclose the following limitation met by Sachdeva:
processing the patient data to determine 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 discloses 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 does not disclose 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 et al. (US 20250090273 A1) in view of Salah et al. (US 20190125493 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Unklesbay discloses 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 does not disclose 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 et al. (US 20250090273 A1) in view of Levin et al. (US 20190333622 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Unklesbay discloses the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Unklesbay further discloses:
generating a notification indicating the determined treatment modification, (Unklesbay discloses the revision including a modification to at least one aspect of an original treatment plan; 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].)
wherein the notification is 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 does not disclose 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, Sachdeva, and Levin in view of Lemchen et al. (US 20160220330 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Unklesbay discloses the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 11 above. Unklesbay does not disclose the following limitations met by Sachdeva:
and 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 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, Sachdeva, and Levin do not teach identifying the auxiliary is missing which is met by Lemchen:
… identify 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).
Conclusion
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