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 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7, 13, 19, and 20 of the instant application (‘381) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, 14 and 18-20 of United States Patent Number 12,412,648, Levin, et al., hereinafter Levin. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to treatment planning for a patient.
Levin and the instant application (‘381) are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Instant Claim
Instant Limitation
Reference Limitation
Reference Claim
1 and 13
one or more processors; one or more storage media coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, performs a computer- implemented method comprising: receiving, from a user device associated with a user, a request to access one or more treatment plans for a patient; identifying a treatment template for the user, the treatment template including treatment preferences of the user, the treatment template being expressed in a domain-specific treatment language including treatment domain-specific protocols; and processing the one or more treatment plans with the treatment template to convert one or more parts of the one or more treatment plans to one or more customized treatment steps in accordance with the treatment preferences of the user using the treatment domain-specific protocols, wherein the customized treatment steps comprise one or more steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans based on a physical condition of the patient.
one or more processors; one or more storage media coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, performs a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a user device associated with a user, a request to access one or more treatment plans for patient; identifying a treatment template for the user, the treatment template including treatment preferences of the user, the treatment template being expressed in a domain-specific treatment language including treatment domain-specific protocols; processing the one or more treatment plans with the treatment template to convert one or more parts of the one or more treatment plans to one or more customized treatment steps in accordance with the treatment preferences of the user using the treatment domain-specific protocols, wherein the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans based on the existence or absence of a physical condition related to the patient, and the physical condition is related to an initial physical condition or an intended physical outcome of the one or more treatment plans;
1 and 14
2 and 3
[claim 2] wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises providing digital fabrication instructions for one or more treatment appliances based on the processed one or more treatment plans.
[claim3] wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises fabricating one or more treatment appliances based on the digital fabrication instructions.
fabricating one or more treatment appliances based on the processed one or more treatment plans, including providing digital fabrication instructions for the one or more treatment appliances based on the processed one or more treatment plans.
1 and 14
4
wherein the customized treatment steps that comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans on a feature associated with an appliance configured to implement the one or more treatment plans on the patient.
wherein the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans on a feature associated with an appliance configured to implement the one or more treatment plans on the patient.
5 and 18
5
the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans on a feature of an appliance configured to implement the treatment plan on the patient; and the feature comprises one or more of attachments, hooks, elastics, bite ramps, power ridges, or a physical geometry of a portion of an aligner.
the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans on a feature of an appliance configured to implement the treatment plan on the patient; and the feature comprises one or more of attachments, hooks, elastics, bite ramps, power ridges, or a physical geometry of a portion of an aligner.
6 and 19
6 and 19
wherein the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans on a procedure performed at a specific stage of the treatment plan.
wherein the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans on a procedure performed at a specific stage of the treatment plan.
7 and 20
7 and 20
the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans on a procedure performed at a specific stage of the treatment plan; and the procedure comprises interproximal reduction performed in accordance with the one or more treatment plans.
the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans on a procedure performed at a specific stage of the treatment plan; and the procedure comprises interproximal reduction performed in accordance with the one or more treatment plans
8
Therefore, claims 1-7, 13, 19, and 20 of the instant application (‘381) are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
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.
8. 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 1-20 are directed to determining a treatment plan for a patient, which is considered a managing personal behavior. Managing person 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, claims 1-12 recite a system comprising a processor and a storage media. Claims 13-20 recite a method and at least one step. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (manufacture and process).
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 claim 1, the claim sets forth a system to manage a treatment plan of a patient, in the following limitations:
receiving, a request to access one or more treatment plans for a patient;
identifying a treatment template for the user, the treatment template including
treatment preferences of the user, the treatment template being expressed; and
processing the one or more treatment plans with the treatment template to convert one or more parts of the one or more treatment plans to one or more
customized treatment steps in accordance with the treatment preferences of
the user, wherein the customized treatment steps comprise one or more steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans based on a physical condition of the patient.
The above-recited limitations manage a treatment plan for a patient. This arrangement amounts to managing personal behavior. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
one or more processors;
one or more storage media coupled to the one or more processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, performs a computer-implemented method;
from a user device associated with a user,
domain-specific treatment language including treatment domain-specific
protocols,
using the treatment domain-specific protocols
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“one or more processors”, “one or more storage media coupled to the one or more processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, performs a computer-implemented method”, “from a user device associated with a user”, “domain-specific treatment language including treatment domain-specific protocols”, “using the treatment domain-specific protocols”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving, identifying, processing). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 18, 19, 94, 183, 247, and 248 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 Claims 13 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claim 3
Claim 3 sets forth:
…based on the digital fabrication instructions.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of managing a treatment plan for a patient, managing personal behavior, which is a method of organizing human activity. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “fabricating one or more treatment appliances”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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.
Regarding Claims 12 and 18
Claims 12 and 18 set forth:
…..conditional statements to modify a treatment plan which are performed based on whether an evaluated condition exists.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of managing a treatment plan for a patient, managing personal behavior, which is a method of organizing human activity. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “wherein the domain-specific treatment language”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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 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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sachdeva et al. (US 8,469,705 B2), hereinafter Sachdeva.
Claims 1 and 13:
Sachdeva discloses:
(claim 1) A system comprising:
(claim 13) A method comprising:
(claim 1) one or more processors;
(claim 1) one or more storage media coupled to the one or more processors, and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, performs a computer-implemented method comprising:
Abstract, lines 2-4, stating "the workstation is based on a computing platform have a graphical user interface, a processor, and a computer storage medium". Also, Column 8, lines 52-54, stating "the system further includes a set of computer instructions stored on a machine-readable storage medium. The instructions may be stored in the memory". Lastly Column 8, lines 60-64, stating "the set of instructions, described in more detail below, comprise instructions for causing the general computer system to perform several functions related to the generation and use of the virtual patient model in diagnostics, therapeutics, and treatment planning".
Receiving, from a user device associated with a user, a request to access one or more treatment plans for a patient;
Column 27, lines 30-35, stating "However, it is possible to provide, in the workstation, a suite of treatment planning software from different appliance manufactures in which case the user could access the treatment planning software for whatever appliance manufacture the practitioner wished to use for treatment of patient".
identifying a treatment template for the user, the treatment template including treatment preferences of the user, the treatment template being expressed in a domain-specific treatment language including treatment domain-specific protocols; and
Column 25, lines 13-65, stating, “ the workstation provides a conversion or formatting of appliance design data into a data set or output format specified by any one of a variety of particular appliance manufacturers”,
Column 27, lines 30-35, stating "However, it is possible to provide, in the workstation, a suite of treatment planning software from different appliance manufactures in which case the user could access the treatment planning software for whatever appliance manufacture the practitioner wished to use for treatment of patient.” As a further explanation, see
Column 3, Lines 4-19, as well as Col. 5, Line 53 – Col. 6, Line 5. For example, Col. 3, Lines 12-17 disclose “predefined therapeutic strategies” (i.e. default preferences) having “associated value sets predefined by the clinician” (i.e. different than the default). The citation corresponding to Col. 5-6 also pertains to user-specific templates.
processing the one or more treatment plans with the treatment template to convert one or more parts of the one or more treatment plans to one or more customized treatment steps in accordance with the treatment preferences of the user using the treatment domain-specific protocols, wherein the customed treatment steps comprise one or more steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans based on the physical condition of the patient; and
Column 23, lines 33-37, stating "In particular, the user may interact with the patient information and the morphable model, and vary the parameters, to stimulate different possible treatments and outcomes to arrive at a final or target treatment objective for the patient", and Column 25, lines 13-65, stating, “ the workstation provides a conversion or formatting of appliance design data into a data set or output format specified by any one of a variety of particular appliance manufacturers”,
(claim 13) fabricating one or more treatment appliances based on the processed one or more treatment plans, including providing digital fabrication instructions for the one or more treatment appliances based on the processed one or more treatment plans.
Col. 24, Lines 33-36, for example, disclose transmitting the treatment plan to one or more manufacturers for fabrication of the appliance(s).
Claim 2: Sachdeva discloses the system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Sachdeva further discloses:
providing digital fabrication instructions for one or more treatment appliances based on the processed one or more treatment plans.
Col. 24, Lines 33-36, for example, disclose transmitting the treatment plan to one or more manufacturers for fabrication of the appliance(s).
Claim 3: Sachdeva discloses the system of claims 1 and 2 as discussed above.
Sachdeva further discloses:
fabricating one or more treatment appliances based on the digital fabrication instructions.
Column 4, lines 52-55, stating "One important aspect of the invention is that throughout the process, the adjustments made are evaluated against the constraints identified by the practitioner in the matrix of patient parameters".
Claim 4: Sachdeva discloses the system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Sachdeva further discloses:
that comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans on a feature associated with an appliance configured to implement the one or more treatment plans on the patient.
Column 21, lines 53-55, stating "Module 34 would process this order and containing instruction for designing the appliance to fit the individual morphology and condition of the patient".
Claim 5: Sachdeva discloses the system of claim 1, as discussed above.
Sachdeva further discloss:
the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans on a feature of an appliance configured to implement the treatment plan on the patient; and the feature comprises one or more of attachments, hooks, elastics, bite ramps, power ridges, or a physical geometry of a portion of an aligner.
Column 10, lines 33-48, is useful information for generating customized orthodontic appliances for treatment of the patient. The position of the teeth in the initial and desired positions can be used to generate a set of customized brackets, and customized flat planar archwire, and customized bracket placement jigs,
Column 21, lines 44-49, stating "These appliances could include both fixed appliances, e.g., brackets, bands, arch-wires, crown, and bridges, surgical splints, surgical arch-wires, surgical fixation plates, laminates, implants, as well as removable appliances including aligning shells, retainers and partial or full dentures"
Column 21, lines 53-55, stating "Module 34 would process this order and containing instruction for designing the appliance to fit the individual morphology and condition of the patient".
Claim 6 and 19: Sachdeva discloses the system of claim 1 and method of claim 13, as discussed above.
Sachdeva further discloses:
the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans on a procedure performed at a specific stage of the treatment plan.
Column 5, lines 43-48, stating "In yet another aspect of the invention, the unified workstation facilitates simulation of realizing the target treatment objective through a number of staged incremental or stepwise treatment plans. The treatment increments can be varied and its impact seen on associated teeth disposition and space management".
Claims 7 and 20: Sachdeva discloses the system of claim 1 and method of claim 13, as discussed above.
Sachdeva further discloses:
the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans on a procedure performed at a specific stage of the treatment plan; and the procedure comprises interproximal reduction performed in accordance with the one or more treatment plans.
Column 43, lines 10 and 16-20, stating "An example of the user staging treatment in stages is set forth in FIGS. 59A-59-l." and “The field 1000 indicates actual tooth movement during the stages of treatment; in FIG 59A, the fields are blank since the teeth are in the original position. In FIG 59B, the user simulated a 10 percent stage of treatment, that is, 10% of the movement of the teeth is simulated."
Column 31, lines 44-45, stating "furthermore, space management can be effectuated by simulation of interproximal reduction".
Claims 8 and 14: Sachdeva disclose the system of claim 1 and method of claim 13, as discussed above.
Sachdeva further discloses:
wherein the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans based on a reference to a tooth ordering sequence in the treatment plan.
Column 42, lines 52-65, This includes a check of the aesthetic appearance of the teeth in the proposed arrangement, in various perspectives. The set up evaluation includes evaluation or confirmation of the following a) the interarch relationships: occlusion class for both right and left sides, overjet, overbite, as well as b) tooth-to-tooth relationships: front intra-arch incisor alignment for uppers and lowers (axial alignment, embrasures, contact points), canine tooth intra-arch tooth alignment, lateral intra-arch buccal segment tooth alignment, and tooth positions and rotations (in/out relationships, first order rotation alignment, contact points for both upper and lower arches.
Claims 9 and 15: Sachdeva discloses the system of claim 1 and method of claim 13, as discussed above.
Sachdeva further discloses:
wherein the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans based on a final position of a patient's teeth in the treatment plan..
Columns 4, line 65 – Column 5, line 1- 3, stating "however, the steps can be performed in any order, and repeated as many times as necessary. The preferred sequence can be driven by the patient's needs or the practitioner's preference. The workstation keeps a record of the latest changes made at each step. If at any step, the results are not satisfactory, then one or more of the previous steps might be revisited and appropriate adjustments made".
Claims 10 and 16: Sachdeva discloses the system of claim 1 and method of claim 13, as discussed above.
Sachdeva further discloses:
wherein the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans based on an interproximal spacing between two teeth.
Column 37, lines 22-25 and 28-30, stating "Fig. 52 illustrates that the user can unclick the icon causing the X-ray to appear on the screen and simply perform space management for both the upper and lower arches using virtual teeth models. After the user has completed the task of managing space between the virtual teeth in the proposed arrangement; the user is able to cycle back and repeat any of the previous steps". Also see previous citation of claim 9.
Claims 11 and 17: Sachdeva discloses the system of claim 1 and method of claim 13, as discussed above.
Sachdeva further discloses:
wherein the customized treatment steps comprise one or more conditional treatment steps conditioning application of at least a portion of the one or more treatment plans based on a dental condition of the patient.
Abstract, lines 6- 16, stating "The workstation further includes a set of software instructions providing graphical user interface tools which the user marks a midline and an aesthetic occlusal plane in a two- or three-dimensional virtual model of the patient, marks an occlusal plane in the virtual model; selects a reference tooth in the virtual model; aligns virtual teeth in the virtual model in a proposed arrangement to treat the patient; manages space between the virtual teeth in the proposed arrangement; and repeats one or more of these steps in an iterative fashion to make any further adjustments in the proposed arrangement.".
Column 27, lines 40-54, “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. A field 466 is provided which provides a matrix format by which the conditions relevant to the patient's soft tissue, skeletal, and dental anatomy are entered, each with respect to vertical, sagittal, and transverse positions, again in text form. The display also includes a treatment strategy field 468 where the user will indicate the general, high level approach to treatment, such as any proposed extractions, appliance type, stages of treatment, etc. These fields 464, 466 and 468, along with displayed image data for the patient, assist the practitioner in identifying the constraints pertinent to the treatment planning”.
Claims 12 and 18: Sachdeva discloses the system of claim 1 and method of claim 13, as discussed above.
Sachdeva further discloses:
wherein the domain-specific treatment language includes conditional statements to modify a treatment plan which are performed based on whether an evaluated condition exists..
Column 8, lines 7-12, stating "A unified workstation environment and computer system for diagnosis, treatment planning and delivery of therapeutics, especially adapted for treatment of craniofacial structures, is described below. In one possible example, the system is particularly useful in diagnosis and planning treatment of an orthodontic patient".
Column 22, lines 1-24, “The treatment planning software 300 also obtains information on standard ("off the shelf") dental or appliances from a module 306, which stores manufacturer catalogs of such appliances, including 3D virtual models of the individual appliances. The treatment planning software includes a module 308 that allows the user to input selections as to variable parameters that affect the visual appearance of the patient, as input to a craniofacial analysis module 328 described below”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Unified workstation for virtual craniofacial diagnosis, treatment planning and therapeutics (US 20040015327 A1) teaches an integrated system is described in which digital image data of a patient, obtained from a variety of image sources, including CT scanner, X-Ray, 2D or 3D scanners and color photographs, are combined into a common coordinate system to create a virtual three-dimensional patient model. Software tools are provided for manipulating the virtual patient model to simulation changes in position or orientation of craniofacial structures (e.g., jaw or teeth) and simulate their affect on the appearance of the patient. The simulation (which may be pure simulations or may be so-called "morphing" type simulations) enables a comprehensive approach to planning treatment for the patient. In one embodiment, the treatment may encompass orthodontic treatment. Similarly, surgical treatment plans can be created. Data is extracted from the virtual patient model or simulations thereof for purposes of manufacture of customized therapeutic devices for any component of the craniofacial structures, e.g., orthodontic appliances.
ORTHODONTIC REPOSITIONING APPLIANCES HAVING IMPROVED GEOMETRY, METHODS AND SYSTEMS (US 20090191502 A1) teaches including orthodontic tooth positioning appliances. An exemplary appliance can include teeth receiving cavities shaped such that, when worn by a patient, repositioning the patient's teeth from a first arrangement toward a subsequent or target arrangement. Appliances can include a cavity having one or more shaped features or protrusions shaped and/or positioned so as to apply a desired force to a patient's tooth received in the cavity and move the tooth along a desired path or direction.
TOOTH MOVEMENT MEASUREMENT BY AUTOMATIC IMPRESSION MATCHING (US 20100151404 A1) teaches detecting deviations from an orthodontic treatment plan. One method includes receiving a tracking model, performing a matching step between individual teeth in a plan model and the tracking model, comparing the tracking model with the plan model, and detecting one or more positional differences.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30, First Friday Off.
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 on 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