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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims end with “the treatment configuration”, which possibly appears to have meant to have further limitations following it, since it does not appear to add anything to the previous language, and rather appears to be leading into another limitation. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite obtaining steps and determining steps. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because storing and retrieving information in memory is well-understood, routine, conventional computer function MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 11, 20 recites the limitation "the position of a patient’s teeth". Claims 6, 16 recite “the edge of the neighboring tooth”. Claims 7, 17 recite “the z-axis” in the last lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims, 1, 11, 20 recite “a patient’s teeth” in the first “obtaining” step, however this has already been recited in the preamble and it is therefor unclear if this is meant to be an additional patient or the same. In a similar manner, claim 1, 11, 20 also recite “the position” of “a patient’s teeth” in the third obtaining step; and “a plurality of alignment operations” at the end, where those have already been established. Claims 6, 16 recite “a spacing” and “a neighboring tooth” which have already been recited. Claims 7, 17 recite “a y-axis of the target tooth” in the second determining step which has already been recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akopov et al. (US 2021/0378793).
Akopov shows a method for use by an orthodontic treatment platform for determining an alignment of patient teeth based on an orthodontic prescription using a plurality of alignment operations ([0007]), the method comprising executing the orthodontic treatment platform using at least one computer hardware processor (“processor”, [12] for instance) to perform obtaining an initial treatment configuration comprising anatomical representations of a patient's teeth (“initial positions of the teeth”, [251],[268] for instance); obtaining an adjustment to a target tooth position associated with an orthodontic treatment plan ([268]-[269] for instance discussing initial position to ideal tooth position); obtaining a prescription ([269] corresponds to either the software determination of the final position or the manual determination of final positions), the prescription comprising spatial coordinates for modeling the position of a patient's teeth relative to a canonical coordinate system ([276],[280] discuss the six variables of movement to arrive at the final stage and that the coordinates are relative to the jaw and therefore relative to a canonical/global coordinate system among the teeth); and determining a plurality of alignment operations ([278] discusses several alignment operations such as misalignment, occlusion, spaces, inter-arch collisions), based on the prescription, to align the patient's teeth to a treatment configuration (final positions), the treatment configuration (see 112 above). With respect to claim 3, wherein the spatial coordinates of the prescription comprise position coordinates and orientation coordinates ([276], [280] discuss both the position coordinates and orientation coordinates), each of the position coordinates and the orientation coordinates are measured relative to a common reference coordinate for each of the patient's teeth (relative to jaw and therefore to a global coordinate system among the teeth). With respect to claim 4, wherein determining the plurality of alignment operations comprises aligning the target tooth to one or more position coordinates ([276],[280]), the aligning comprising: determining an arch distance between the target tooth position and an archform ([286] for instance discusses inter arch collision, i.e. distances between tooth and opposite archform; [286] also discusses avoiding one arch collisions); determining a spacing between the target tooth position and a neighboring tooth ([286] looks for collision and therefore spacing between; [288] discusses limiting spacing between teeth and avoiding max spacing); and determining a vertical offset between the target tooth position and an initial vertical position (position change in regards to the y-axis). With respect to claim 5, wherein determining the plurality of alignment operations comprises aligning a height of each of the patient's teeth in the orthodontic treatment plan such that the vertical offset of the patient's teeth, relative to a horizontal plane, increases from front teeth to back teeth (target positions will mimic natural aesthetics including the natural offset of distal teeth from a horizontal plane being more than proximal teeth, as the arch is angled up towards the distal teeth). With respect to claim 6, wherein determining a spacing between the target tooth position and a neighboring tooth comprises determining a distance between a first feature point corresponding to an edge of the target tooth and a second feature point corresponding to the edge of the neighboring tooth ([297] discusses utilizing only adjacent portions of the teeth, i.e. their edges/boundaries). With respect to claim 7, wherein updating the orientation coordinates of the spatial coordinates using a plurality of treatment operations (treatment operations as detailed above), the plurality of treatment operations comprising determining a tip rotation about a canonical z-axis by determining an angle between a y axis of the target tooth and a canonical y-axis along a XY plane of the target tooth ([285] “tip”); determining a torque rotation about a canonical x-axis by determining an angle between a y-axis of the target tooth and the canonical y-axis along a YZ plane of the target tooth ([285] “torque”); and determining a tooth rotation about a canonical y-axis by determining an angle between the z-axis of the target tooth and the canonical z-axis along a XZ plane of the target tooth ([285] “rotation”). With respect to claim 8, wherein determining the plurality of treatment operations comprises applying transformations relative to the canonical coordinates (coordinates relative to jaw/global system as detailed above), the transformations corresponding to the orientation coordinates being applied in a predetermined sequence (sequence utilized by software or practitioner considered predetermined). With respect to claim 9, wherein the predetermined sequence comprises: applying the tooth rotation about the canonical y-axis of the target tooth; applying the tip rotation about the canonical z-axis, subsequent to applying the tooth rotation about the canonical y-axis; and applying the torque rotation about the canonical x-axis, subsequent to applying the tip rotation (this is the same order as presented in [285], in relation to the table accessible by the processor).
Computer method claims 11, 13-19 are rejected similarly to the above.
Storage method claim 20 is rejected similarly to the above.
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.
Claims 2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akopov in view of Yan (US 2023/0255726).
Akopov discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show, wherein determining the plurality of alignment operations comprises determining placement of the patient's teeth sequentially from front teeth to back teeth.
Yan similarly teaches an orthodontic treatment plan method wherein the order of positioning may be from the front teeth (incisors) to the back (last molar) ([0070]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akopov to adjust from front to back teeth as taught by Yan in order to utilize known adjustment methods in the orthodontic art for affecting desired tooth movements.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akopov.
Akopov discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show wherein the orientation coordinates are updated prior to updating the position coordinates.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akopov to have this order of updating as this would have been considered obvious to try (MPEP 2143 I E). The problem of adjusting coordinates was recognized since Akopov is addressing such; there are a finite number of predictable solutions (either same time or one before the other); one of ordinary skill could have pursued the known potential solutions since the result of these solutions is the same (that coordinates have been updated) and would have been expected (orientation and position can be altered in any order and will end at the same location/arrangement).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights