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 .
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract
idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-24 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, claims 1-24
are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 12, and 24 are representative of the inventive concept and recite:
Claim 1:
A method for updating a dental treatment plan, the method comprising:
obtaining a dental treatment plan based on a first dental scan, wherein the dental treatment plan includes a first tooth geometry data and a target position of a patient's teeth;
obtaining a second tooth geometry data from a second dental scan performed subsequent to the first dental scan;
comparing features in the first tooth geometry data to features in the second tooth geometry data to determine teeth in the first dental scan that correspond to teeth in the second dental scan;
determining a geometric transformation to map teeth in the first dental scan that correspond to teeth in the second dental scan;
applying the geometric transformation to the patient's teeth in the target position to determine an updated target position;
and optimizing one or more stages of the dental treatment plan based on updated target position.
*Claims 12 and 24 recite similar limitations to claim 31 but for a system and non-transitory computer-
readable storage medium, respectively.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of comparing, determining, and optimizing) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer
components/functions such as “system” and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in claim 12, but for the system language, the claim encompasses the user attaining data, comparing it, and mapping out the data to update a plan. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Additionally, the recitation of generic computer components and functions such as obtaining also covers behavioral or
interactions between people (i.e. the computer), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-23 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or
defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2, reciting specifics on what is considered optimization, but for recitation of generic computer components/functions).
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims
recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 12 recites: system, processors, memory configured to store instructions
Claim 24 recites: non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, processors, and system
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by a system, processors, memory configured to store instructions, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-23 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 24, hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a particular application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity.
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexandrovich(US20210106403A1) in view of Moin(US20210322136A1).
Claim 1
Alexandrovich discloses:
A method for updating a dental treatment plan, the method comprising: obtaining a dental treatment plan(Para 0063, Alexandrovich discloses orthodontic treatment plan) based on a first dental scan(Para 0077, Alexandrovich discloses intraoral scan), wherein the dental treatment plan(Para 0063, Alexandrovich discloses orthodontic treatment plan) includes a first tooth geometry data(Figure 9B, Alexandrovich discloses tooth geometry data[CAN BE FIRST TOOTH GEOMETRY DATA]) and a target position of a patient's teeth(Para 0071, Alexandrovich discloses target intermediary tooth positions); obtaining a second tooth geometry data(Figure 9B, Alexandrovich discloses tooth geometry data[CAN BE SECOND TOOTH GEOMETRY DATA]) from a second dental scan(Para 0077, Alexandrovich discloses intraoral scan) performed subsequent to the first dental scan; comparing features in the first tooth geometry data to features in the second tooth geometry data to determine teeth in the first dental scan that correspond to teeth in the second dental scan(Para 0069, Alexandrovich discloses comparing a dental feature[CAN BE FROM FIRST DENTAL SCAN to a threshold value of a parameter[CAN BE FROM SECOND DENTAL SCAN]); (Para 0116, Alexandrovich discloses the adjustment of the target); and optimizing one or more stages of the dental treatment plan based on updated target position(Para 0122, Alexandrovich discloses correcting the orthodontic treatment plan in real-time based on treatment progress and intermediate positions of each tooth).
Alexandrovich does not explicitly disclose:
determining a geometric transformation to map teeth in the first dental scan that correspond to teeth in the second dental scan
Moin discloses:
determining a geometric transformation to map teeth in the first dental scan that correspond to teeth in the second dental scan(Para 0022, Moin discloses determining a transformation by utilizing a dental scan before and after treatment)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus for orthodontic treatment planning of
Alexandrovich to add determining a geometric transformation to map teeth in the first dental scan that correspond to teeth in the second dental scan, as taught by Moin. One of ordinary skill would have
been so motivated to provide a way for dental provider to determine or predict movement of teeth in between scans to better enable positive orthodontic outcomes for patients, but in this case for automated orthodontic treatment planning using deep learning (Para 0010, Moin discloses: “The first object of the invention is to provide an automated system for determining an orthodontic treatment plan, which requires limited or no interaction with a clinician (apart from uploading and downloading data) and which can automatically determine a plan whose execution requires limited or no interaction with a clinician.”).
Claim 2
Alexandrovich discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein optimizing one or more stages comprises applying a constrained optimization(Para 0075, Alexandrovich discloses orthodontic constraints) adjusting positions of teeth within the one or more stages accounting for changes in teeth shapes between the first dental scan and the second dental scan(Para 0128, Alexandrovich discloses: “Refined evaluations of a precise three-dimensional shape of each tooth include the use of penalty functions and optimization criteria [CRITERAI CAN INCLUDE COMPARISON BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND DENTAL SCANS.).
Claim 3
Alexandrovich discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein optimizing one or more stages comprises: determining that the second dental scan includes at least one newly appearing tooth(Para 0076, Alexandrovich discloses dental scanning technologies which enable the determination of a newly appearing tooth); and modifying one or more stages of the dental treatment plan based at least in part on the at least one newly appearing tooth(Para 0122, Alexandrovich discloses correcting the orthodontic treatment plan in real-time based on treatment progress and intermediate positions of each tooth).
Claim 4
Alexandrovich discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein optimizing one or more stages of the dental treatment plan comprises: detecting jaw movement(Para 0043, Alexandrovich discloses jaw movement/occlusion) between the target position of the patient's teeth and the second dental scan(Para 0069, Alexandrovich discloses 3D modeling of the occlusion); and modifying one or more stages of the dental treatment plan to accommodate the jaw movement(Para 0122, Alexandrovich discloses correcting the orthodontic treatment plan in real-time based on treatment progress and intermediate positions of each tooth).
Claim 6
Alexandrovich discloses:
The method of claim 5, wherein modifying the one or more stages of the dental treatment plan comprises preserving a gap space between teeth in the target position and a gap space between teeth in the one or more modified stages(Para 0075, Alexandrovich discloses placing constraints on parameters including maintaining a space between teeth).
Claim 7
Alexandrovich discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the second dental scan is provided by an intraoral scanner(Para 0077, Alexandrovich discloses intraoral scan).
Claim 8
Alexandrovich discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the second dental scan data includes a three- dimensional (3D) scan of the patient's teeth(Figure 13, Alexandrovich discloses what can be a 3D scan of a patient’s teeth).
Claim 9
Alexandrovich discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the target position includes a 3D model of the patient's teeth in the target position(Figure 13, Alexandrovich discloses what can be the patient’s teeth in a target position).
Claim 10
Alexandrovich discloses:
The method of claim 9, wherein the 3D model of the patient's teeth includes the first tooth geometry data(Figure 7A, Alexandrovich discloses what can be first tooth geometry data).
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites similar limitations as claim 1. See claim 1 analysis.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites similar limitations as claim 2. See claim 2 analysis.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as claim 3. See claim 3 analysis.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 4. See claim 4 analysis.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 6. See claim 6 analysis.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 7. See claim 7 analysis.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites similar limitations as claim 8. See claim 8 analysis.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites similar limitations as claim 9. See claim 9 analysis.
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites similar limitations as claim 1. See claim 1 analysis.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexandrovich(US20210106403A1) in view of Moin(US20210322136A1) and Miller(US20170319054A1).
Claim 5
Alexandrovich discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein optimizing one or more stages of the dental treatment plan comprises: (Para 0014, Miller discloses using 3D imaging to visualize erupted teeth); and modifying one or more stages of the dental treatment plan to accommodate the at least one erupting tooth(Para 0122, Alexandrovich discloses correcting the orthodontic treatment plan in real-time based on treatment progress and intermediate positions of each tooth).
Alexandrovich and Moin do not disclose:
determining that the second dental scan includes at least one erupting tooth
Miller discloses:
determining that the second dental scan includes at least one erupting tooth(Para 0014, Miller discloses using 3D imaging to visualize erupted teeth)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus for orthodontic treatment planning of Alexandrovich to add determining that the second dental scan includes at least one erupting tooth, as taught by Miller. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way for dental provider to determine the status of a tooth to better enable positive orthodontic outcomes for patients, but in this case for a spatial 3d stereoscopic intraoral camera system (Para 0002, Miller discloses: “While other digital SLR cameras are useful, Intraoral Cameras are used by dental professionals chair side to show the patient a clear picture of the inside of their mouth, allowing the dentist to consult them on various treatment options, and save the images directly to a patient's file for later viewing and comparing.”)
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites similar limitation as claim 5. See claim 5 analysis.
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexandrovich(US20210106403A1) in view of Moin(US20210322136A1) and Joshi(US20160374784A1).
Claim 11
Alexandrovich discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising (Figure 1, Alexandrovich discloses dental aligners) corresponding to optimized stages of the dental treatment plan.
Alexandrovich and Moin do not disclose:
generating design files
Joshi discloses:
generating design files(Para 0009, Joshi discloses the generation of a crown design file)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus for orthodontic treatment planning of Alexandrovich to add generating design files, as taught by Joshi. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way for dental provider to generate design files to better enable accurate creation of dental aligners, but in this case for generating a design for dental restoration (Para 0002, Joshi discloses: “Certain intra-oral imaging systems allow a dental practitioner to generate a 3D image of a patient's mouth and display the topographical characteristics of a tooth on a computer display monitor.”)
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites similar limitation as claim 11. See claim 11 analysis.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexandrovich(US20210106403A1) in view of Moin(US20210322136A1) and Gutman(WO2008131140A2).
Claim 17
Alexandrovich and Moin do not disclose:
The system of claim 16, wherein the jaw movement is detected substantially in a sagittal plane of the patient.
Gutman discloses:
The system of claim 16, wherein the jaw movement is detected substantially in a sagittal plane of the patient(Para 0010, Gutman discloses sagittal projections of the jaw).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus for orthodontic treatment planning of Alexandrovich to add sagittal plane of the patient, as taught by Gutman. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to be able to understand jaw movement to better create an ideal orthodontic solution for the patient, but in this case for an apparatus for recording an replicating mandibular movement (Para 0002, Gutman discloses: “In corrective dentistry, especially that concerning those suffering from tempormandibular joint syndrome, a full and complete understanding of a specific patient's jaw movement is needed in order to properly diagnose and implement a treatment plan for the patient.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sachveda(US20040002873A1) discloses an apparatus for automated generation of a patient treatment plan.
Raslambekov(US11864936B2) discloses a system for determining orthodontic treatment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685