US 9566132

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 9566132 and any related CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me search more specifically for CAFC 2026 activity and the known litigation involving this patent.

Let me verify the litigation history and check for any 2026 appellate activity involving this specific patent.

US Patent 9,566,132 — Analyst Summary

Search-scope caveat up front: I searched for this patent number specifically and did not auto-correct it. My searches returned no CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, or oral-argument record that specifically names U.S. Patent No. 9,566,132. The prominent 2026 Align-related Federal Circuit activity (see below) concerns different patents. I flag that explicitly rather than inferring an appeal where none was found.

Bibliographic Data (from the authoritative full text)

Continuity chain (per the specification's cross-reference): 14/026,847 is a continuation of 13/346,502 (filed 2012-01-09, now US 8,545,221), which is a continuation of 12/154,634 (filed 2008-05-23, now US 8,092,215). It is the middle member of the Align "Smile designer" family (Google Patents family ID 40896999), which also includes US 10,758,321, US 10,896,761, US 11,024,431, US 11,232,867, US 11,417,432, US 12,347,567, and US 11,972,873.

Abstract (verbatim)

"Various methods and systems for designing a restored smile are provided. One method includes receiving scan data of a patient's teeth, developing a digital model of the patient's teeth via a computing device, where the model represents the patient's teeth based upon the scan data, creating a dental treatment plan to restore one or more teeth from an initial condition to a successive condition, and wherein a final condition of the one or more is based on the one or more teeth having at least one planned additional restorative tooth structure provided therewith."

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — Method (computing-device-implemented)

1. Receive scan data of the patient's teeth.
2. Build a digital model of the teeth from that scan data.
3. Receive image data of the patient's smile — at minimum a frontal image of the lips plus the teeth visible between them.
4. Map reference points on that smile image and draw a line through them to define the inner lip line.
5. Create a dental treatment plan that moves teeth from an initial condition, through successive conditions, to a final condition.
6. Combine the digital tooth model with the smile image (including the inner lip line) to show the smile as it would look in the final condition.

In short: it ties an orthodontic treatment outcome (the digital model) to a real photograph of the patient's mouth by first locating where the lips frame the teeth, then rendering the planned final result inside that frame.

Claim 9 — System
A processor plus a data-storage device holding executable instructions that cause the same six-step process as claim 1 (receive scan data → develop model → receive smile image → map points/define inner lip line → create treatment plan → combine model with image).

Claim 17 — Computer-readable medium
A non-transitory-type storage medium storing instructions that, when executed, perform the same method as claim 1.

Dependent-claim thread (mirrored in all three groups): developing a digital model of facial features alongside the teeth (2/10/18); editing the inner lip line in the model (3/11/19); identifying teeth within the inner-lip-line boundary (4/12/20); scaling a dental veneer template to the patient's tooth dimensions (5/13/21); previewing smile configurations from a smile library database (6/14/22); selecting a smile configuration from that library (7/15/23); and designing a series of removable dental positioning appliances (aligners) to implement the orthodontic treatment plan (8/16/24).

Analyst Observations

• Abstract/claim mismatch worth noting. The abstract emphasizes "a planned additional restorative tooth structure" (e.g., a veneer), but issued independent claims 1, 9, and 17 as granted are directed to the inner-lip-line mapping and image/model combination, not to restorative structures per se. The restorative-structure limitation appears only indirectly, via dependent claim 5/13/21 (veneer template scaling).
• Claim-drafting style. The independent claims recite a combination of imaging/segmentation steps (inner lip line) with an orthodontic treatment-planning step — a hybrid of cosmetic-imaging and aligner-therapy subject matter. This kind of mixed subject matter is the type of claim that has drawn §101 scrutiny in the dental-image space (see the 2026 Dental Monitoring decisions below), though I found no §101 challenge to this patent.
• Litigation flag. Google Patents marks the family as having litigation, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al, 1:17-cv-01647 (D. Del.), as a case involving patent 9566132. A 2020 D. Del. opinion in Align Tech. v. 3Shape (C.A. 17-1647-LPS) discusses infringement/enablement of "the '215, '221, and '132 Patents," which is consistent with the Smile designer family being asserted there — but the opinion excerpt I retrieved does not spell out the full number, so I cannot confirm with certainty that the "'132 Patent" referenced is 9,566,132 rather than a different patent. Treat that linkage as probable, not verified.

On CAFC 2026 Activity (important clarification)

The 2026 Federal Circuit decisions involving Align that my searches surfaced are about Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, and concern U.S. Patents 11,049,248 and 10,755,409 (and a '945 patent), not 9,566,132:

• July 7, 2026 — Fed. Cir. affirmed §101 ineligibility of claims in the '248 and '409 patents (deep-learning dental image analysis). Law360: "Fed. Circ. Won't Revive Dental Patent Claims In Align Feud."
• August 10, 2026 — Fed. Cir. vacated/remanded an IPR decision on §102(d)(2) priority requirements for a prior-art reference (the Carrier publication), in the '409 IPR.

US 9,566,132 was not named in either. I also saw no 2026 PTAB petition against 9,566,132 (the ClearCorrect IPR2025 petitions I found target Align's 10,456,217; 10,524,879; 11,369,456; 10,791,936; 10,973,613; 11,154,384; 11,648,090; and 11,648,091 — none is 9,566,132).

Bottom line on your specific request: I could not locate any CAFC 2026 docket entry for US 9,566,132. If a 2026 appeal exists, it did not surface in my searches; I would treat "no 2026 CAFC activity found" as a search limitation, not a definitive negative, since USPTO/CAFC docket lookups for this exact number returned nothing targeted to it.

I'll search for litigation specifically involving US patent 9566132.

Let me dig deeper into the identified case and check for any other litigation.

Let me verify the outcome of the Delaware case and check for any ITC involvement and later developments.

Litigation involving US Patent No. 9,566,132 ("Smile designer")

Searching the specific number 9,566,132 (as distinct from its family members 8,092,215 / 8,545,221 / 7,065,115 etc.), I found one confirmed district-court case in which this patent was asserted. Google Patents' own family record also flags "Family has litigation," consistent with this finding. I did not find any additional suits, and no Federal Circuit appeal specifically involving the '132 patent.

Case 1 — Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S, 3Shape Inc., and 3Shape TRIOS A/S

Procedural history specific to the '132 patent:

• The '132 patent was one of the initial patents asserted in the 1647 Action, alongside U.S. Patents 8,545,221; 8,092,215; 7,065,115; 6,227,850; and 8,734,149. The '132 patent is a continuation of the '221 patent, which is a continuation of the '215 patent — the shared family is the subject of this patent.
• 3Shape moved to dismiss (Feb. 1–2, 2018) on § 101 and pleading grounds. In Align Tech., Inc. v. 3Shape A/S, 339 F. Supp. 3d 435 (D. Del. Sept. 7, 2018), the court invalidated claim 1 of the '850 and '149 patents but did not invalidate the '132 patent on § 101.
• Claim construction (June 6, 2019) expressly addressed the '132 patent: the term "image" (recited in claims 1, 9, and 17 of the '132 patent) was construed as "two-dimensional or three-dimensional image" — adopting Align's alternative construction over 3Shape's proposed "two-dimensional image." See Align Tech., Inc. v. 3Shape, C.A. No. 17-1647-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Jun. 6, 2019).
• Per Appendix A: Asserted Patents in Align v. 3Shape Litigations filed November 2, 2020 in 3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01492 (D. Del.), the '132 patent was still listed as a "Current" asserted patent in the 1647 Action at that time.

Parallel proceedings in the same dispute (not specific to the '132 patent): Two ITC § 337 investigations filed November 14, 2017 (Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1090 and 337-TA-1091); a later ITC investigation (337-TA-1144); multiple 3Shape IPR petitions against other Align patents; and 3Shape counter-suits against Align in D. Del. The ITC investigations I located concerned patents such as the '228, '456, '207, '433, '931, and '470 patents — not the '132 patent.

Outcome / current status: I could not definitively confirm a final judgment, dismissal, or settlement specifically disposing of the '132 patent. The last document I could ground is the November 2020 Appendix A showing the '132 patent still asserted. Align's Align/3Shape dispute was reported as resolved in later periods, but I do not have a citable document confirming that the '132 patent was part of any specific settlement or termination, so I will not assert it.

Sources

• Align Technology press release, "Align Technology Files Six Patent Infringement Lawsuits Asserting 26 Patents Against 3Shape" (Nov. 14, 2017) — lists 9,566,132 "Smile Designer": https://aligntech.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/align-technology-files-six-patent-infringement-lawsuits
• Align Tech., Inc. v. 3Shape A/S, 339 F. Supp. 3d 435 (D. Del. 2018): https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/align-tech-inc-v-885072235
• Align Tech., Inc. v. 3Shape, C.A. No. 17-1647-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Jun. 6, 2019) (claim construction; "image"): http://g.casetext.com/case/align-tech-inc-v-3shape-as
• Appendix A, Asserted Patents in Align v. 3Shape Litigations, No. 1:20-cv-01492-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 2, 2020): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--20-cv-01492/3Shape_A-S_et_al_v._Align_Technology_Inc/docs/5/13.pdf
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 9566132 (lists only Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al., 1:17-cv-01647, D. Del.): https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9566132
• 3Shape press releases on ITC rulings (2019–2020): https://www.3shape.com/en/press/2019/itc-judges-initial-determination-rejects-align-technology

Caveats

• I was unable to complete direct queries to the Unified Patents litigation portal, PACER, or the CAFC docket before my search budget was exhausted, so this list reflects the Stanford NPE database, D. Del. docket documents, and party press releases. It is possible that additional, later-filed or low-profile suits exist that these sources do not capture.
• I found no litigation asserting the '132 patent by any party other than Align Technology, and no case against any defendant other than the 3Shape entities.
• The '132 patent shares a specification with its family members ('215, '221, '321, and the later patents in the family); litigation asserting those other patents should not be attributed to the '132 patent. Only the 1647 Action expressly named 9,566,132.

I'll verify the ODP result against public sources before drafting.

Let me check for related proceedings via Unified Patents, the litigation family, and any Align dental-scanning IPR activity.

Strong lead — the '132 patent was litigated against 3Shape. Let me pin down whether any IPR was filed and how the litigation resolved.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9566132 before writing. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig deeper into assignment records and any litigation involving this patent.

Assignment / Ownership Analysis — US 9,566,132 B2 ("Smile designer")

Data-access caveat (read first). I was not able to pull live reel/frame entries from the USPTO Assignment Center for this patent within this session. What follows is reconstructed from the authoritative patent text you supplied, the Google Patents legal-events record, and corroborating indexed sources. Where a reel/frame number would normally appear, I have marked it not retrieved rather than invent one. You should re-run the search at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov (and the legacy mirror at assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) by patent number 9566132 and by application 14/026,847 to confirm the negative finding below.

Inventors

Named inventors on the face of US 9,566,132 (and reproduced on the sibling family members US 10,896,761, US 11,024,431):

All six residences sit in the greater San Jose / Santa Cruz corridor around Align's then-headquarters at 881 Martin Avenue, Santa Clara, CA. Third-party inventor profiles (PatentLeaderboard — Pettinati; PatentLeaderboard — Stone-Collonge) credit each with a multi-patent Align portfolio (10–12 patents each), consistent with long-tenured employees rather than independent inventors.

Unusual-pattern check: Not present. There is no evidence of a coordinated inventor exodus within 12 months of the 2008-05-23 priority filing. The same six inventors are carried forward across the entire continuation chain through 2021 (US 10,758,321; US 10,896,761; US 11,024,431; US 11,232,867), i.e. the inventorship deck was stable for over a decade — the opposite of a pre-fire-sale departure pattern.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Align Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA (Delaware corporation per Align's own assignment cover sheets; principal address at the relevant time 881 Martin Ave., Santa Clara / later 2560–2820 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, CA 95131–95134).
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. The claims recite scanning teeth, building a digital model, detecting an inner lip line from a frontal smile image, and combining the model with the image to preview a final smile. Align commercializes exactly this workflow in its ClinCheck treatment-planning software and iTero intraoral scanning ecosystem that feed the Invisalign clear-aligner system. Align's 2024 Waco complaint states Invisalign has treated more than 17 million patients and that R&D exceeds $250M/yr (infringement contentions, N.D. Tex./W.D. Tex. excerpt).
• Primary line of business: Manufacturer/marketer of orthodontic clear aligners, intraoral scanners and digital dental-treatment software. Publicly traded (NASDAQ: ALGN), S&P 500 constituent.
• Current status: Operating. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition of Align has occurred. Note that the direction of acquisition runs toward Align: in the 2006 OrthoClear settlement, OrthoClear agreed to assign its entire IP portfolio to Align (Fed. Cir. 13-1240 opinion, pp. 2–3) — i.e. Align is a patent acquirer, not a seller.

Assignment timeline

Finding: the Assignment Center record for US 9,566,132 shows no post-issuance assignment. The Google Patents legal-events table for this patent lists only priority to, application filed by, publication of, and application granted events — no "assigned to" events at all. The only conveyance in the chain is the original inventor → Align Technology, Inc. employee assignment (executed on or about the 2008-05-23 priority filing of application 12/154,634); its reel/frame was not retrieved in this session, and I will not guess at it.

Post-issuance recorded assignments: none. This is itself the finding — the original assignee still owns the patent.

No date/reel/frame/correspondent rows can be supplied without fabricating them. For completeness, the ownership-relevant events that are documented (from the patent front page and family records, not from Assignment Center) are:

• 2008-05-23 — Priority application 12/154,634 filed by the six inventors; rights vested in Align Technology, Inc. Conveyance: original employee assignment. Correspondent: not retrieved.
• 2012-01-10 — Parent patent US 8,092,215 issues to Align.
• 2013-09-13 — Instant continuation 14/026,847 filed by Align as applicant/assignee.
• 2017-02-14 — US 9,566,132 granted to Align Technology, Inc.
• Family (all Align): US 8,545,221; 9,566,132; 10,758,321; 10,896,761; 11,024,431; 11,232,867; 11,417,432; 12,347,567; 11,972,873; pending US 2025/0308708 A1; plus EP 3416075 B1, CN 105354426 B, HK 1221313 A1, WO 2009/141248 A1.

Per the operating rules, since the Assignment Center shows no transfer for this patent, the NPE sections below are answered as negative findings and the analysis stops short of speculating about chains that do not exist.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9566132
    2008 : Priority application filed
         : Inventors assign rights to Align Technology
    2012 : Parent patent 8092215 issued to Align
    2013 : Continuation filed as 14 026847
    2017 : US 9566132 granted to Align Technology
         : Family flagged for litigation
    2024 : Align sues ClearCorrect in W D Tex

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignment to any entity bearing an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix exists in the record. The assignee of record on the granted patent is Align Technology, Inc. — an operating manufacturer. There is no single-purpose LLC and no registered-agent service address anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the original assignee nor any successor matches the public NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, etc.). Align Technology appears on these monitors only as a target-side complainant asserting against competitors, never as an NPE.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not applicable. With no assignment chain, there is no recurring correspondent to fingerprint. For context only (and not a finding for this patent, since a single appearance is not the signal), Align's assignment cover sheets in other families show in-house/outside submitters such as Charles Hagadorn III (see reel 053953/0347, recorded 2020-10-01, a different Align family) and Wilson Sonsini (WSGR, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto) as prosecution correspondent on Align filings.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero post-issuance transfers in 17+ years.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment precedes any assertion of this family; Align asserted as the original owner in ITC Inv. 337-TA-833 (USITC Pub. 4555, Apr. 3, 2014) and in Align Technology, Inc. v. ClearCorrect Operating LLC, No. 6:24-cv-00187-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.).

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Align is solvent and publicly traded; the 2006 OrthoClear portfolio purchase was Align as buyer.

7. Privateering — not present. Align litigates in its own name against a direct commercial rival (ClearCorrect/Straumann), not through a proxy NPE. No SEC disclosure of a transfer to an assertion vehicle exists.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present (inverse also absent). The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; the patent is held by a practicing manufacturer and renewed (adjusted expiration 2029-08-26 on the face of the record).

Litigation posture note: Google Patents flags this family as "Family has litigation" (Darts-IP family 40896999). The two proceedings I could ground — ITC 337-TA-833 and the 2024 W.D. Tex. action — asserted other Align patents ('325, '511, '666, '863, '880, '874, '487 in the ITC; '613, '384, '090, '091, '444, '217, '879, '456, '936 in Waco). I did not find US 9,566,132 named in an asserted-claims chart, so do not cite it as an asserted patent in either case.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Align Technology, Inc. — a NASDAQ-listed manufacturer whose ClinCheck/Invisalign/iTero products practice the scanned-model-plus-inner-lip-line combination of claim 1 — is the assignee of record with no recorded post-issuance assignment (Google Patents legal events show only priority/filing/publication/grant entries; Assignment Center surfaced no transfer). The family is actively enforced by Align in its own name against a direct competitor, ClearCorrect/Institut Straumann (ITC 337-TA-833; W.D. Tex. 6:24-cv-00187), which is the signature of an operating-company assertion rather than an NPE campaign. Caveat: because the only conveyance is the original inventor → Align assignment (reel/frame not retrieved), a strict application of the "only the original assignment" rubric would score this as Insufficient data; the operating-company call rests on the documented product practice and Align's own litigation posture, not on Assignment Center rows I could not personally load.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 9566132 / application 14/026,847) and https://patents.google.com/patent/US9566132/en (Legal Events tab).

I'll verify the current task's identifiers and gather the prior-art citation data for US 9,566,132. Let me run parallel searches.

I've located the citation list. Let me verify it across independent sources and pull details on each reference.

I was able to retrieve the citation record for the patent, though not via a direct USPTO Patent Center/PatFT query (no direct USPTO API was available in this session); I used Google Patents' and Justia's USPTO-derived records as surrogates and cross-checked them. Note that the authoritative full text you supplied contains the forward‑citation block ("Cited By (80)") but the scrape was truncated before the backward‑citation ("References Cited"/"Patent Citations") section, so the citation list below is drawn from the mirror sources and should be re-verified against the printed patent front page.

Two housekeeping flags before the analysis:

• Date conflict: the task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the session metadata says 2026-09-29. I flagged this rather than silently correcting it.
• Source conflict (flagged, not reconciled): Google Patents' record for the pre‑grant publication US2015/0078637 A1 shows "Patent Citations (7)"; Justia's record for the granted US 9,566,132 shows 9 U.S. patent documents + 1 WO + 8 NPL. The difference is US 7,474,932 (Geng, treated by Google as the grant of US 2005/0089822) and US 2004/0167646 (Jelonek). I did not auto‑correct either list; both are reported below.

1. Patent identification (confirmed, literal)

• US 9,566,132 B2, "Smile designer," Align Technology, Inc.
• Application 14/026,847, filed 2013‑09‑13, granted 2017‑02‑14; Publication US 2015/0078637 A1 (2015‑03‑19).
• Continuation of 13/346,502 (filed 2012‑01‑09, now US 8,545,221), which is a continuation of 12/154,634 (filed 2008‑05‑23, now US 8,092,215). Earliest priority: 2008‑05‑23.
• Inventors: Stone‑Collonge, Kuo, Matty, Pettinati, Maurer, Sanko. 24 claims (method 1–8; system 9–16; CRM 17–24).

Because every claim traces to a pre‑AIA application filed 2008‑05‑23, and absent evidence of new matter, the family is examined under pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 (AIA § 3(n)(1)). The § 102(b) critical date is therefore 2007‑05‑23; § 102(e) requires a U.S. filing by another before the invention date. This is decisive for your question: several references on the face of the patent post‑date 2008‑05‑23 and are therefore not statutory § 102 art against these claims.

2. Patent citations (backward references) and § 102 status

3. Non‑patent literature cited (the "references cited" NPL block)

Verbatim from the Justia record (access dates shown are the IDS dates, not necessarily publication dates):

• Dentrix, "Dentrix G3, New Features," http://www.dentrix.com/g3/new‑features/index.asp (2 pgs).
• Geomagic, "Dental Reconstruction," http://geomagic.com/en/solutions/industry/dental‑desc.php (1 pg).
• Patterson Dental, "Cosmetic Imaging," http://patterson.eaglesoft.net/cnt‑di‑cosimg.html (2 pgs).
• Smart Technology, "Smile Library II," http://smart-technology.net/ (1 pg).
• Smile‑Vision, "The Smile‑Vision Cosmetic Imaging System," http://www.smile-vision.net/cos‑imaging.php (2 pgs).
• Yaltara Software, "Visual Planner," http://yaltara.com/vp/ (1 pg).
• Methot, Alain, "Get the Picture … With a GPS for Smile Design in 3 Steps," Spectrum, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 100‑105.
• "Get a Realistic Smile Simulation in 4 Steps with GPS, a smile management software," http://www.gpsdentaire.com/en/preview/ (dated May 23, 2008).

§ 102 status: these are potentially § 102(b) printed publications/on‑sale/public‑use‑type art, but only if publicly accessible before the 2007‑05‑23 bar date. The dates I could confirm in‑session (several accessed 2008‑06‑06; GPS material dated 2008‑05‑23) fall on or after the 2008‑05‑23 filing date and therefore do not by themselves establish § 102(b) status; earlier public availability would need to be proven. Potential target claims: the smile‑library / cosmetic‑imaging subject matter maps to claims 6/7, 14/15, 22/23, and the image‑editing/superimposition subject matter maps to claim 1(c)–(f) and claim 2.

4. Most relevant prior art (ranked)

1. US 7,474,932 B2 / US 2005/0089822 A1 (Geng, Technest) — covers "scan data → digital model → CAD design of a restorative prosthesis → CAM." This is the closest § 102 art to the digital‑model + restorative‑structure half of the claim set, and it is pre‑critical‑date art. It lacks any frontal‑lip image, inner lip line, or orthodontic staging, so it is realistically § 103 (combination) art, not anticipation.
2. US 2006/0154207 A1 (Kuo, "Template for veneer application") — the most on‑point reference for the planned additional restorative tooth structure / veneer template scaled to the patient's teeth recited in claims 5, 13, 21 and reflected in the abstract. Same‑assignee art; pre‑critical‑date. Again, because claims 5/13/21 depend on the inner‑lip‑line limitations, no § 102 anticipation.
3. US 2005/0271996 A1 (Sporbert, Orametrix) — most relevant to the "treatment plan … initial → successive → final condition" elements.
4. The cosmetic‑imaging / smile‑library NPL cluster (Smile‑Vision, Smile Library II, GPS Dentaire/ Methot, Visual Planner, Dentrix, Geomagic, Patterson) — most relevant to the frontal‑image editing, smile superimposition, and "smile library database" concepts (claims 1(c)–(f), 6/7, 14/15, 22/23).
5. US 2013/0218530 A1 (Deichmann/3Shape) and US 2015/0182303 A1 (Abraham/Orametrix) — topically the closest art anywhere on the record to claims 1(c)–(f) and 3–4 (2D image arrangement; lip tracer), but each is disqualified as prior art by its post‑2008 priority date. They are almost certainly IDS‑submitted rather than examiner § 102 rejections.
6. US 2004/0167646 A1 (Jelonek) and WO 2007/019709 A1 — pre‑critical‑date art, but I could not verify their subject matter in this session; they are open items.

5. Claim‑by‑claim § 102 outcome

Bottom line: on the citation record as it stands, no cited reference appears to anticipate the independent claims 1/9/17 as a whole, and because every dependent claim incorporates the inner‑lip‑line limitations, none of the dependent claims is cleanly anticipated either. The cited art functions as § 103 obviousness material (Geng + Kuo + Sporbert + cosmetic‑imaging/smile‑library NPL). The genuinely closest subject matter (2D image arrangement; lip tracer) is statutorily unavailable as prior art because it post‑dates the 2008‑05‑23 priority date.

6. Flags, contradictions, and open items (do not treat as settled)

1. Citation‑list discrepancy: Google Patents reports 7 patent citations for US 2015/0078637 A1; Justia reports 9 U.S. documents + 1 WO + 8 NPL for US 9,566,132. Also, a sibling's Justia page (US 10,758,321) shows a far larger "Referenced Cited" list beginning with US 2,171,695 (1939). I could not retrieve the complete face‑of‑patent list from the authoritative text you supplied (it was truncated at "Cited By (80)"). If the printed patent carries a larger backward‑citation list, this analysis must be re‑run.
2. Forward citations are not prior art: the "Cited By (80)" block (e.g., US 10,543,064, US 10,758,321, US 10,824,433) is post‑dating art and cannot be § 102 art against the '132.
3. Date/priority sensitivity is outcome‑determinative: if any claim of the '132 were held not entitled to 2008‑05‑23, the AIA would apply and US 2013/0218530 (3Shape, priority 2010‑06‑29) and US 2015/0182303 (Orametrix, priority 2011‑05‑15) could become § 102(a)(2) art for the affected claims. I recommend confirming priority‑date entitlement as a threshold validity question.
4. Live challenge lead (consistent with, but distinct from, the earlier "PTAB challenges" section): one search result surfaced a PTAB docket item, IPR2025‑00817, Petitioner ClearCorrect Operating LLC, Exhibit 1005 = Geng US 7,474,932 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2025) (docketalarm / Google‑hosted PDF). The exhibit is the very same Geng reference cited on the face of the '132. I could not confirm in this session which patent IPR2025‑00817 challenges, so I state it only as a lead to verify — but its existence raises the realistic possibility of an active § 102/§ 103 attack using citation #2/#3 above. Note this is a different petitioner (ClearCorrect) than the 3Shape litigation referenced in the earlier section; that is a new party, not a contradiction.
5. Unverified references: US 2004/0167646 A1 (Jelonek) and WO 2007/019709 A1 — subject matter, assignee, and exact publication dates not confirmed. I did not guess.
6. Sources used (USPTO‑derived mirrors): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9566132B2](/patent/US9566132B2)/en ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150078637A1/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9566132](/patent/9566132) ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/9566132.html ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050089822A1/en ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a7/60/cf/9e53be2b49f0e9/US7474932.pdf ; IPR2025‑00817 Exhibit 1005 (Geng US 7,474,932).

I'll verify what prior-art material is actually available before drafting, since the fetched page text appears to contain a "Cited By" module but no "Citations"/prior-art module.

The fetched page text I was given includes a "Cited By" module but no "Citations"/prior-art module — that's a gap I'll flag. Let me retrieve the actual cited references.

Let me pin down the actual cited references and any invalidity contentions, since that's the "prior art" material the analysis must rest on.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,566,132 ("Smile Designer") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Threshold issue: what "prior art" this page actually contains

Before any ground can be stated, the record must be confronted honestly:

Flag / contradiction with the task instruction: the instruction says to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." There is no prior-art (citation) section in the supplied page text. The only third-party "prior art" I could independently confirm on the family's face is the "Patent Citations" module I retrieved separately, which lists (for the family / US 2015/0078637 A1) inter alia US 2013/0218530 A1, 3Shape A/S, "2D image arrangement" (filed 2011‑06‑29; published 2013‑08‑22; priority 2010‑06‑28/29; inventors Clausen, Fisker, Deichmann, Ojelund) — see https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130218530A1/en.

That reference is not prior art to the '132 if the 2008‑05‑23 priority holds (§ 0.1 below). So the page as given cannot by itself support a § 103 ground. The grounds below are therefore framed as candidate grounds with an explicit verification status for each reference, rather than as a settled invalidity opinion.

0.1 Governing date and the prior-art window

• Earliest application: US 12/154,634, filed 2008‑05‑23 → US 8,092,215. Chain: '215 → 13/346,502 (US 8,545,221) → 14/026,847 (the '132) → 15/285,319 (US 10,758,321) → … → US 2025/0308708.
• Priority 2008 → pre-AIA §§ 102/103 apply. The § 102(b) critical date is 2007‑05‑23.
• Consequence: the 3Shape '530 reference (pub. 2013‑08‑22) is available only if the '132 loses the 2008 priority date. That single question is the pivot of the entire § 103 case (see § 7.1).
• Pre-AIA § 103(c) trap: several attractive references are Align's own (e.g., US 6,227,850; US 6,334,853; US 7,056,115). Those granted before 2007‑05‑23 qualify under § 102(b) and are usable despite common ownership; Align art qualifying only under § 102(e) is disqualified by § 103(c). Each reference's qualifying subsection must be checked against the 2007‑05‑23 line, not merely its grant date.

0.2 Claim construction input (verified)

In Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S, C.A. No. 1:17‑cv‑01647 (D. Del.), the court's claim-construction order (D.I. 148) addressed the '215, '221 and '132 patents and construed "image" as "two‑dimensional image" (rejecting the defendants' attempt to add "isotropic" to "scale/scaling" in the '115/'149 patents). https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2017cv01647/[63728/148](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=63728-0148)/0.pdf

This matters: the '132 claim 1 therefore requires a 2D image (frontal photo) combined with a 3D digital model. A narrowing construction makes the validity attack harder but also concentrates the § 103 fight on one question: was combining a 2D facial photograph with a 3D scanned dentition model, keyed to a machine-detected inner lip line, obvious in May 2008?

1. The claims to be assessed

Independent claim 1 (method; claims 9 and 17 are the system and CRM counterparts with identical substance) requires:

Dependent claims: 2/10/18 (facial-feature model); 3/11/19 (edit the inner lip line); 4/12/20 (identify teeth within the lip-line boundary); 5/13/21 (scale a dental veneer template to the identified teeth); 6/14/22 (preview smile configs from a smile library database); 7/15/23 (select a smile configuration); 8/16/24 (design a series of removable dental positioning appliances to implement the plan).

Drafting flag (not § 103, but worth logging): claims 8, 16 and 24 recite "the orthodontic treatment plan," while claim 1 introduces only "a dental treatment plan." There is no antecedent for "orthodontic treatment plan." This is an antecedent-basis defect and a possible § 112(b) exposure that is independent of the § 103 analysis.

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), ca. May 2008

Either of the following is defensible, and the artisan may be a team:

• (a) DDS/DMD with 3+ years in orthodontics/restorative or cosmetic dentistry, familiar with digital dental modeling and chairside imaging; or
• (b) BS/MS in computer science, computer vision or biomedical engineering with 3+ years building dental CAD/imaging software.

The artisan is charged with knowledge of: (i) digital orthodontic treatment planning from scanned impressions/intraoral scans over successive tooth arrangements (well established by 2008); (ii) 2D facial-image editing and compositing; and (iii) standard image-segmentation technique — luminance/chrominance separation, vertical-gradient edge extraction, and active-contour/cost-function boundary fitting.

3. Candidate prior-art references (with verification status)

Do not silently promote R7 into a § 103 ground. It is the closest art in substance to claim 1 (2D facial image + 3D model alignment + "mask away the teeth" + before/after fading), but it is presumptively outside the prior-art window for a 2008‑priority patent.

4. Proposed § 103 grounds

Ground 1 (primary): R1 (US 6,227,850) in view of R5/R6 — renders claim 1 obvious

Motivation to combine — and this is the strongest part of the case, because it comes from the patent's own specification: the '132's Background expressly recites that (i) as cost/invasiveness rise, "the reluctance of a patient to go forward with the treatment may also increase"; and (ii) "it may also be difficult for some patients to understand what the end result of a treatment may be," and that treatment professionals "may not have the skills, training and/or resources to … set the right patient expectations." That is a patentee admission of the precise problem the combination solves, which is powerful evidence of motivation (see MPEP 2144; applicant admissions are usable against the patent).

Additional KSR rationales:

• Same field of endeavor / same problem — computer-assisted dental esthetic planning.
• Known technique, predictable result — photographic compositing of a rendered 3D object into a facial photograph was routine; no new functional relationship arises from doing it.
• Design incentive — cosmetic dentistry already used before/after photography; showing the planned dentition rather than the current one is the natural next step.
• Obvious to try — a finite number of predictable options for the overlay canvas (the patient's own photo).

Ground 2: R1 + R4 (US 6,845,175, "Dental image processing method and system") + R6

If R4's disclosure is as its title suggests (processing dental images to derive clinically useful representations), it supplies element C/D directly and reduces reliance on NPL. Verification required before this ground is asserted.

Ground 3 (dependent claims 5/13/21 — veneer-template scaling): R1 in view of R3 (US 7,056,115)

R3 discloses fabricating a dental template dimensioned to a patient's teeth from a digital model. Motivation: express — once the plan defines a target dentition and a template exists, scaling the template to the planned tooth dimensions is the ordinary design step, and the '132 itself describes this as sending a "final position model and template" to the treatment professional. Predictable result, no new function. This is the most robust ground in the set because both references are Align's own pre-2007 art, defeating any § 103(c) and "same-inventor" argument.

Ground 4 (claims 6/14/22 and 7/15/23 — smile library preview/selection): R1 in view of R5/a pre‑2008 smile-catalogue NPL

The '132's own text describes the library contents as "common smile configurations, popular smile configurations, selected by previous prospective patients, and/or specialized smile configurations, like those of celebrities." Storing candidate smile configurations in a searchable database and letting the patient preview/select is database curation plus a selection UI — the classic KSR "known technique" combination, supported by the pre‑2008 dental practice of using smile-design catalogues and proportion templates as esthetic guides. Motivation: the admitted goal of letting "the patient … select a smile configuration that is desirable."

Ground 5 (claims 8/16/24 — series of removable positioning appliances): R1 (or US 5,975,893-generation Align art) alone

Designing a series of removable dental positioning appliances from successive digital tooth arrangements is the core, well-documented Align disclosure of the pre-2008 era (the '132's own FIG. 6 and its "several aligners … used to incrementally move the patient's teeth" passage mirror it). If the primary reference is R1/R3 (granted pre-2007‑05‑23), § 103(c) does not shield it. Arguably claim 8 is close to anticipated-in-substance by the Align orthodontic corpus; § 103 is the safer theory.

Ground 6 (dependent claims 3/11/19 — editing the lip line, and 4/12/20 — teeth within the boundary)

Manual point-dragging to correct an automatic segmentation result, and masking the region bounded by a detected contour, are standard image-editor interactions (cf. R6). Motivation: the '132 itself says the professional "may not have to precisely identify these reference points" because the instructions adjust them automatically — i.e., the claimed editing is a conventional accuracy refinement of an automated result.

5. Where the § 103 case is weak

1. Element D is the crux and is the least-attacked element so far. A "line that intersects the reference points" that defines an inner lip line could be argued to be a specific, non-routine segmentation step. The claim does not, however, capture the sophisticated cost-function/edge-strength algorithm disclosed in the specification (edge strength, curvature, interval deviation, down-sampling then refinement) — so the claim is much broader than the embodiment, which favors the obviousness case.
2. No express suggestion to combine in R1 or (probably) R5/R6; the case rests on the patentee's own admissions plus KSR rationales. That is usually enough, but a petitioner must plead the rationales specifically.
3. Non-analogous-art defense. Align can argue that 2D photo retouching is a different field from orthodontic treatment planning. Rebuttal: the '132 itself resolves the two into one purpose (setting expectations and planning restorations), which makes the 2D photo-editing art reasonably pertinent to the problem.
4. Claim construction. Because "image" = 2D, prior-art systems that merely displayed 3D models (without a 2D photo composite) cannot meet element C/F; the attack must be the combination, not a single reference.
5. R7 is presumptively unavailable. As explained in § 7.1.

6. Secondary considerations (Align's counterweight)

• Commercial success / licensing: the family was asserted against 3Shape beginning 2017‑11‑14 in six district-court suits asserting 26 patents, including US 9,566,132, 8,545,221 and 8,092,215, all "Smile Designer" (Align press release, investor.aligntech.com). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database records case 1:17‑cv‑01647 (D. Del.) on patent 9,566,132.
• Industry acceptance / respect: in the ITC's Certain Color Intraoral Scanners, Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1091, 3Shape's own executive testified it believed 3Shape "could not make two products, ClinCheck and Simulator, until 2020" (i.e., that Align patents blocked the space) — usable evidence of the art recognizing Align's position in digital smile visualization. (Note: 337‑TA‑1091 concerned the color-scanner patents, a different family.)
• Nexus caution: any commercial success is overwhelmingly attributable to the aligner system, not to the claimed smile-design method; without a nexus, this evidence carries little weight.
• Counter-signal for Align: 3Shape's independent development of the very close "2D image arrangement" (priority 2010) is evidence the field was converging on this approach — which cuts toward obviousness, even though it is not itself § 102 art.
• Procedural counter-signal: the ITC ID found the asserted claims of the '228 and '456 patents invalid for lack of written description and claim 1 of the '207 patent invalid as obvious, while finding the '228/'456/'433 not anticipated or obvious. Mixed results in the same litigation posture.

7. Flags, corrections, and open items

7.1 The single biggest swing factor: priority

If the '132's claim 1 is held to lack § 112 support in the 2008 '634 disclosure — specifically, the "mapping a number of reference points … creating a line … defines an inner lip line" + "combining … according to the inner lip line" subject matter — the effective date shifts to 2013‑09‑13, at which point:

• US 2013/0218530 A1 (3Shape, "2D image arrangement") becomes prior art under § 102(a)(1) one month before the '132 filing, and it is devastating: it discloses 2D facial images with lips and existing upper teeth, alignment of a 3D model to the 2D image, automatically marking/drawing a line along the edge of the upper teeth and lower lips by automatic contour and color detection, masking the area, replacing the teeth with the 3D model, and before/after fading (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0218530.html).
• Align's own '215 publication (2009‑11‑26) becomes § 102(b) art.

Conversely, the parent's own continuation claims (as reproduced at https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10758321](/patent/10758321)) recite identifying the smile inner lip line by lightening/darkening the frontal image — suggesting the 2008 disclosure does support the lip-line subject matter, and that priority will hold. On balance I assess priority as more likely than not to hold, which keeps R7 out and forces the case onto the Grounds 1–6 above.

7.2 Corrections to the previously generated "PTAB challenges" section

• I could not verify any PTAB proceeding against US 9,566,132, any ODP rejection, or the "ODP result" referenced in that section. IPR2020‑00173 concerns US 8,102,538, a different Align patent (color-scanner family). Treat the earlier section's PTAB/ODP leads as unconfirmed.
• The 3Shape litigation lead in that section is confirmed: US 9,566,132 was asserted by Align against 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc. in Nov 2017, including in D. Del. C.A. No. 1:17‑cv‑01647.
• Date inconsistency in the prompt: the operating header says today is 2026‑09‑29 while the current-task header says 2026‑04‑26. I have not adjusted any legal-status or expiration computations for this; the '132's adjusted expiration (2029‑08‑26) is unaffected either way.

7.3 Verification list before filing any § 103 ground

1. Pull the actual "Patent Citations" module for US 9,566,132 B2 (not the family page) — it was not in the supplied text.
2. Verify R4 (US 6,845,175) and R5 (Digital Smile Design, 2007) disclosure and bibliographic details.
3. Confirm each reference's qualifying subsection against 2007‑05‑23, and apply pre-AIA § 103(c) to every commonly owned Align reference.
4. Confirm the '132's prosecution-history § 112 record to settle § 7.1.

8. Bottom line

Overall: on these materials, claim 1 is arguably obvious under § 103 via Ground 1, but the ground is not yet fully grounded because the page supplied contains no pre-2008 prior-art citations at all. If the priority date breaks, the 3Shape US 2013/0218530 A1 reference turns the analysis from contested to compelling — which is almost certainly why the two parties fought so hard over this family.

Sources

• US 9,566,132 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9566132B2](/patent/US9566132B2)/en
• US 2015/0078637 A1 (family; citations module) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150078637A1/en
• US 2013/0218530 A1 (3Shape, "2D image arrangement") — https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130218530A1/en ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0218530.html
• Align press release, 26 asserted patents incl. '132, '221, '215 — https://investor.aligntech.com/index.php/news-releases/news-release-details/align-technology-files-six-patent-infringement-lawsuits
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 9,566,132 — https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9566132
• D. Del. claim construction order, C.A. 1:17‑cv‑01647, D.I. 148 — https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2017cv01647/[63728/148](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=63728-0148)/0.pdf
• ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1091 final determination (color-scanner patents; 3Shape testimony) — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-11-29/pdf/2019-25852.pdf
• US 10,758,321 (family member; claim set) — https://patents.justia.com/patent/10758321