DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 12, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/KR2023/012347, filed on 8/21/2023.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-13 are directed to generating an orthodontic treatment plan, including managing personal behavior. Managing personal behaviors fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-11 recite a method and at least one step. Claims 12-13 recite a device comprising a memory and processor. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, the claims sets forth a method and device, comprising the following limitations:
analyzing one or more scan data for a patient and generating element data necessary for orthodontic treatment from the one or more scan data by using the analysis result;
identifying a problem item for the orthodontic treatment of the patient using the element data and displaying the identified problem items; and
generating an orthodontic treatment objective for the patient using the identified problem item and displaying information for the generated orthodontic treatment objective.
The above-recited limitations generating an orthodontic treatment plan, including managing personal behavior. Managing personal behaviors fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Independent claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
A computing device
Independent claim 12 recites the following additional elements:
A computing device
A processor
A memory
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“A computing device”, “A processor”, “A memory”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (analyzing, identifying, generating). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 174-177 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claim 12 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims
Each of these steps of the dependent claims 2-11 and 13 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 and 12 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claims and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
Regarding Claim 3
Claim 3 sets forth:
wherein the generating of the element data comprises generating element data by matching multiple scan data among the one or more scan data.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of generating an orthodontic treatment plan, including managing personal behavior. Managing personal behaviors fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0029068, Sachdeva, et al., hereinafter Sachdeva.
Regarding claim 1, Sachdeva discloses a method for generating an orthodontic treatment plan, the method being performed by a computing device and comprising:
analyzing one or more scan data for a patient and generating element data necessary for orthodontic treatment from the one or more scan data by using the analysis result, (para. 122, Information about treatment planes generated by the craniofacial analysis module 328 is input to the practice management software);
identifying a problem item for the orthodontic treatment of the patient using the element data and displaying the identified problem items, (para. 17, The treatment planning process flow for a patient typically includes the following steps. To begin with, the general approach to the treatment is postulated or proposed by the practitioner, based upon attending to the patient's complaints by clinical examination and radiographic images, listening and examination and, in light of that, assessment of the real problem or problems); and
generating an orthodontic treatment objective for the patient using the identified problem item and displaying information for the generated orthodontic treatment objective, (para. 127, User involvement is contemplated in modules 328 and 330. In particular, the user may interact with the patient information and the morphable model, and vary the parameters 308, to simulate different possible treatments and outcomes to arrive at a final or target treatment objective for the patient).
Regarding claim 2, Sachdeva discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Sachdeva further discloses wherein the scan data is data acquired using an intraoral scanner or skeletal computed tomography (CT), (para. 141, records in the form of digital data pertaining to some or all of the following: the patient's clinical history, medical history, dental history, and orthodontic history as well as 2D photographs, 2D radio graphic images, CT scans, 2D and 3D scanned images, ultrasonic scanned images), and
the element data is data obtained by preprocessing the scan data into a format required for identifying the problem item, (para. 63, The elements of the craniofacial and dental complex can be analyzed quickly in either static format (i.e., no movement of the anatomical structures relative to each other) or in an dynamic format (i.e., during movement of anatomical structures relative to each other, such as chewing, occlusion, growth, etc.))
Regarding claim 3, Sachdeva discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Sachdeva further discloses wherein the generating of the element data comprises generating element data by matching multiple scan data among the one or more scan data, (para. 97, the complete 3D tooth models 116 are created from combining X-Ray data with 3D models of teeth obtained by a scan of the crowns of the teeth (using the scanner 30 of FIG. 1 or from a laser scan of a physical model of the dentition), and/or with the use of template tooth roots that are modified to match the X-ray data).
Regarding claim 4, Sachdeva discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Sachdeva further discloses wherein the generating of the element data comprises generating the element data by separating the one or more scan data, (para. 157, After the scan is obtained, the teeth are separated from surrounding structures and represented in the computer as individual, individually moveable, virtual tooth objects).
Regarding claim 5, Sachdeva discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Sachdeva further discloses wherein the displaying of the problem item comprises determining a position and a direction in which the problem item is to be displayed, (paragraphs 108-109, Typically, the x, y, z coordinate system will be selected such that when looking at the patient from a frontal view, the x direction will be to right of the patient, the y direction towards the top of the patient's head and the z direction will be out away from the patient. As one of average skill in the art will appreciate, the orientation of the x, y, z plane may be in any orientation with respect to the reference points 262 and 266); and
displaying the problem item according to the determined position and direction, (para. 157, the user has selected the "Alignment 2D-3D" icon 570, which causes the screen display 572 to appear. In this display, a 3D virtual model of the teeth 116 appears on the display, superimposed over a two dimensional X-ray photograph).
Regarding claim 6, Sachdeva discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Sachdeva further discloses wherein the displaying of the problem item comprises, when multiple data related to the problem item are displayed in an overlapping manner, displaying the data by distinguishing each data using identifiable visual information, (para. 157, a 3D virtual model of the teeth 116 appears on the display, superimposed over a two dimensional X-ray photograph).
Regarding claim 7, Sachdeva discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Sachdeva further discloses wherein the displaying of the information for the orthodontic treatment objective comprises generating the orthodontic treatment objective for the patient using the identified problem item, (para. 144, the user has selected a "treatment strategy" icon 461, which causes the display 462 to appear. In this display, there is a field 464 for the user to enter high level diagnosis and problem classification information, for example in the form of text),
wherein the orthodontic treatment objective is generated in a manner that reduces deviation from a reference value of the identified problem item, (para. 202, the comparison thus leads the practitioner to identify deviations from normative measurements. The display shows the normal values in the right hand column 864 of the displays).
Regarding claim 8, Sachdeva discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Sachdeva further discloses wherein the displaying of the information for the orthodontic treatment objective comprises updating a screen displaying the identified problem item to display the information for the orthodontic treatment objective, along with an analysis numerical value adjusted based on the orthodontic treatment objective, (para. 27, the workstation enables the practitioner to create and update such knowledge base through a self-learning process aided by computer instruction tools resident in the unified workstation, para. 83, the resulting model is displayed on the workstation user interface, and para. 193, The midline then shifts, with the amount of the shift indicated in numerical value).
Regarding claim 9, Sachdeva discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Sachdeva further discloses wherein the displaying of the information for the orthodontic treatment objective comprises, when multiple data related to the information for the orthodontic treatment objective are displayed in an overlapping manner, displaying the data by distinguishing each data using identifiable visual information, (para. 144, the user has selected a "treatment strategy" icon 461, which causes the display 462 to appear. In this display, there is a field 464 for the user to enter high level diagnosis and problem classification information, for example in the form of text and para. 157, a 3D virtual model of the teeth 116 appears on the display, superimposed over a two dimensional X-ray photograph).
Regarding claim 10, Sachdeva discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Sachdeva further discloses further comprising:
generating an orthodontic treatment plan for the patient using the information for the generated orthodontic treatment objective and displaying the generated orthodontic treatment plan, (para. 144, the user has selected a "treatment strategy" icon 461, which causes the display 462 to appear. In this display, there is a field 464 for the user to enter high level diagnosis and problem classification information, for example in the form of text); and
outputting a control signal for fabricating an orthodontic device used for orthodontic treatment of the patient, based on the generated orthodontic treatment plan, (para. 229, as the design of tooth finish position dictates or drives the prescription of the appliance, the present treatment planning techniques lead directly to appliance design parameters (bracket and wire position, or other treatment design, such as staged shell configuration) for treatment of the patient).
Regarding claim 11, Sachdeva discloses the method of claims 1 and 10 as described above. Sachdeva further discloses wherein the outputting of the control signal comprises:
converting the orthodontic treatment plan into a medical chart format, (para. 143, it may be necessary to format the tooth data in a format compatible with the appliance design and treatment planning software so as to ensure compatibility between the various systems that may be installed on the workstation);
displaying the orthodontic treatment plan converted into the medical chart format, (para. 143, it may be necessary to format the tooth data in a format compatible with the appliance design and treatment planning software so as to ensure compatibility between the various systems that may be installed on the workstation); and
transmitting the orthodontic treatment plan converted into the medical chart format to a hospital's patient management system (PMS) so that the converted orthodontic treatment plan is recorded in an electronic chart of the patient, (para. 122, Based on the treatment plan, this software generates the most productive scheduling of appointments for the patient. The practice management software 312 also generates reports, provides insurance and benefit tracking, and supports electronic claims filing with the patient's insurance company).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 1. Sachdeva further discloses a device for generating an orthodontic treatment plan, the device being configured as a computing device comprising a processor, and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions, and the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the steps, (para. 139).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Method and system for comprehensive evaluation of orthodontic care using unified workstation (US 20050271996 A1) teaches orthodontic treatment planning, evaluation and quality measurement is provided comprising a workstation having computing platform, a graphical user interface, a processor and a computer storage medium containing digitized records pertaining to a patient.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER ALTSCHUL MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights