DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed 1/27/2026 in which claims 1, 3, 8, 13, 14, 24 and 25 have been amended, claim 12 has been cancelled, and claim 26 has been added.
Examiner Aniss Chad is the new examiner of record.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/27/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that the recited limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), and therefore that the claims do not recite a mental process.
This argument is not persuasive for at least three reasons.
First, the argument is directed exclusively to the mental process grouping and does not address the independently sufficient mathematical concept grouping identified in the rejection below. Even accepting Applicant’s premise arguendo, the claim remains ineligible because it recites a mathematical concept. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Indeed, the amended simulation requires complex mathematical calculation — computation of stress at a geometric boundary as a function of applied force. An argument that a step is too computationally intensive for the mind is not an argument for eligibility; it confirms the step is mathematical. See SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims requiring analysis too complex for the human mind were nonetheless ineligible because the advance was “an advance in mathematical techniques”). The specification confirms this, disclosing the simulation as implemented via a “6 degree-of-freedom (DOF) spring,” a “plastic flow rule” or “nonlinear hardening rule,” “hyper-elastic models and/or hypo-elastic models,” and “calculat[ing] stresses at a boundary between the geometry of the bone and the geometry of the PDL” (¶¶ [0056]–[0061]). The amendment further specified the mathematical relationship calculated. Narrowing an abstract idea to a particular mathematical relationship does not render it non-abstract. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978).
Second, claim 1 recites no computer, processor, memory, or computer-implemented limitation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “simulating” encompasses modeling or predicting the described bone change by hand calculation or practitioner estimation. Applicant’s argument is premised on computational capability that appears nowhere in the claim, and is therefore directed to unclaimed subject matter. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Even if it was implied, it is using a generic computer for its generic functions to perform the mathematical calculations.
Third, the remaining steps are plainly capable of mental performance. “[E]valuating … by comparing the simulated tooth position to a desired tooth position” is observation, evaluation, and judgment of the type an orthodontist performs routinely; nothing requires a scale or precision beyond human capability. Electric Power Grp. v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[M]odifying the one or more appliances when the comparison … exceeds an efficacy threshold” is a decision to change a design; the specification defines “appliance design” as “layouts, configurations, designs, instructions … configuration data, dimensions” (¶ [0049]) and describes the modification which can be performed by a human designer (¶¶ [0078]–[0079]). “[R]eceiving patient data, and a treatment plan” is mere data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant further argues with respect to claims 13, 14, and 16 that although some limitations may include mathematical concepts (e.g., triangulation), “the combination of additional elements use the purported mathematical concepts in a specific manner that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application.”
This argument is not persuasive. Examiner’s review confirms that the limitations of claims 13, 14, and 16 recite only further steps of the exception itself — creating meshes “using triangulation,” applying boundary conditions via FEM, determining contact points via FEA, defining displacement fields and contact forces, correlating nodes to contact points, summing net forces, predicting a next position, and evaluating an index of predictability — each of which is a mathematical operation and/or an evaluation. Limitations reciting the exception cannot supply integration at Step 2A Prong Two or an inventive concept at Step 2B. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), 2106.05; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590. Moreover, FEM, FEA, and triangulation are conventional numerical techniques recited at the highest level of generality, with no disclosed modification thereto (¶ [0067]); naming a conventional mathematical tool and instructing that it be applied in the field of orthodontic appliance design is the “apply it” instruction and a field-of-use limitation. MPEP 2106.05(f), (h); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014).
None of the MPEP 2106.05 considerations is satisfied: (a) no improvement to a computer (none is recited) or to another technology, the asserted advance residing in the accuracy/efficiency of the analysis itself (¶¶ [0005], [0038]); (b) no particular machine; (c) no transformation — data is converted into other data, and no fabrication, thermoforming, or manufacturing step is claimed, notwithstanding the disclosure at ¶ [0083] and FIG. 9 (940); and (d) no application beyond generally linking the exception to the orthodontic field.
At Step 2B, the additional element — receipt of patient data and a treatment plan — is well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity, and the ordered combination recites only the archetypal sequence of receiving data, modeling, calculating, comparing, and changing data. MPEP 2106.05(d), (g); Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355; OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
To advance prosecution, Applicant may consider reciting fabrication of the modified appliance (supported at ¶ [0083]). Applicant is encouraged to request an interview. Any amendment must be supported and may raise new issues under §§ 102/103, which will be treated on the merits upon entry.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 8–13, and 24–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shanjani in view of Brawn is maintained.
Applicant primarily argues that Shanjani and Brawn, “either individually or in combination, do not describe or suggest” the amended limitation of simulating bone remodeling including “simulating changes to a bone from stress at a boundary between the bone and a periodontal ligament from one or more forces applied to the tooth by the one or more appliances,” in combination with the other recited features.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Brawn expressly teaches the bone/PDL boundary mechanism recited. Brawn states that “[o]rthodontics involves the movement of teeth through bone. By applying pressure to a tooth, bone can be broken down at a leading edge of the tooth to facilitate tooth movement. New bone is then created at a trailing edge of the tooth. Bone is resorbed in (e.g., broken down) in areas of pressure between a tooth root and periodontium, and bone is deposited (created) in areas of tension between a tooth root and periodontium. Pressure can cause resorption and tension can cause deposition regardless of where they occur along a tooth root surface” (See ¶ [0003]). Brawn defines the periodontium as including “the periodontal ligament and the boney socket in which the periodontal ligament is disposed and which surround the tooth” (¶ [00163]), and defines bone remodeling as “one or both of deposition and resorption of bone,” including “a change in the bone’s geometry” (¶ [00180]). Brawn further teaches that force exerted on the teeth “can also cause pressure on the periodontium” (¶ [00198]) and that root resorption is exacerbated by orthodontic forces “that exert on periodontal tissue pressure that is higher than the normal physiologic capillary and interstitial pressure” (¶ [00246]); see also ¶ [00188] (bone resorption “of the tooth root or periodontium”). Brawn additionally quantifies the applied appliance forces in grams of force (¶¶ [00194]–[00199], [00523]). Brawn thus teaches, expressly, bone change (resorption/deposition) occurring at the boundary between the bone and the periodontal ligament as a function of force applied to the tooth by an appliance — the precise physical relationship the amended claim recites simulating.
Brawn further teaches use of patient-specific volumetric imaging data to determine treatment parameters and to design the appliance. Brawn teaches that “[d]ensity of the patient’s bone can be measured, for example, using computed tomography (CT), in one or more embodiments, cone beam CT, prior to light therapy administration,” and that “[o]nce the patient’s bone density is determined, an optimal dosage of light can be determined for achieving the desired tooth movement” (¶ [00521]). Brawn also teaches that an apparatus “can be configured to be conformal with … a specific human patient’s[] particular dental geometry, for example, using information obtained from CT scans (e.g., cone beam CT scans), models of the patient’s jaw, intra-oral digital scanned models, and/or photographs of the patient’s jaw,” and that appliance design “can be custom designed, using CAD/CAM design applications … based on information obtained from one or more of the foregoing methods” (¶¶ [00516]–[00517]). Brawn additionally teaches processor-executable algorithms that determine a “tooth movement factor … associated, at least in part, with an amount of movement of the patient’s teeth” (¶ [001100]) and that compute a modified appliance-switching rate and resulting percentage reduction in treatment time (¶¶ [001093]–[001104]; FIG. 142).
Shanjani supplies the remaining claimed workflow. Shanjani teaches receipt of patient dentition data and a first treatment plan comprising a series of aligners (¶¶ [00017]–[00018], [00093]); model-fitting and system identification to “deduce mechanical properties of the tooth-periodontal ligament (PDL)-alveolar bone system,” noting “the stiffness of the tooth-PDL may vary with different stages of tooth movement” (¶ [000145]); alveolar bone remodeling wherein force “displace[s] the tooth in its socket, deforming the alveolar bone convexly towards the root at the leading edge, and producing concavity towards the root at the trailing edge,” with osteoblastic and osteoclastic activity at the respective surfaces (¶ [000158]); non-linear system analysis and parametric model fitting (¶¶ [000132]–[000139]); determination of tooth position and orientation and comparison of “determined movements … to the planned movements for the teeth in order to evaluate the appliance performance” (¶¶ [000010], [000154]); an efficacy threshold whereby performance is unsatisfactory if “the amount of tooth movement achieved is more than 30% away from the planned movement” (¶ [000168]); and responsive modification of “the teeth receiving cavity geometries of an orthodontic appliance,” “the geometries of subsequent appliances,” and “the shape and/or thickness of the aligner” (¶¶ [00036], [000170]; claims 46–48). Shanjani further states that “[t]he expected values for a planned treatment may be determined by computer simulation” (¶ [000168]) and that performance data informs “adaptive closed-loop treatment planning and appliance design” (¶¶ [00006], [00076]).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to model the bone/PDL boundary response taught by Brawn within Shanjani’s computer-simulation-based evaluate-and-modify appliance workflow in order to predict the tooth position a given appliance will achieve and correct appliance geometry before fabrication, reducing off-track treatment (Shanjani ¶¶ [00004], [000170]; Brawn ¶¶ [00521], [001104]) and to increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits.( Brawn ¶ [00515]) . This is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Accordingly, the prior art rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 and 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process and/or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Claims 1–11, 13–23, and 26 recite a series of steps and fall within the statutory category of a process. Claim 24 recites one or more processors and a memory and falls within the category of a machine. Claim 25 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and falls within the category of a manufacture. Step 1: YES for all claims. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of a Judicial Exception
The claims recite an abstract idea, specifically mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations) and mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III).
Claim 1 recites the following limitations that set forth the exception:
“simulating bone remodeling from the patient data to determine a simulated tooth position of a tooth using the one or more appliances, wherein simulating bone remodeling includes simulating changes to a bone from stress at a boundary between the bone and a periodontal ligament from one or more forces applied to the tooth by the one or more appliances” — a mathematical concept. Simulating stress at a bone/PDL boundary and the resulting bone change is the performance of mathematical calculations applying mechanical relationships (force, stress, strain, displacement). The specification confirms the step is implemented by mathematical models, including a “6 degree-of-freedom (DOF) spring,” a “plastic flow rule,” a “nonlinear hardening rule,” “elastic deformation,” “a hardening curve,” “hyper-elastic models and/or hypo-elastic models,” and “calculat[ing] stresses at a boundary between the geometry of the bone and the geometry of the PDL” (¶¶ [0056]–[0063]). Alternatively, this step is a mental process, as a practitioner can observe and form a judgment as to where a tooth will move under a given appliance force.
“evaluating the one or more appliances by comparing the simulated tooth position to a desired tooth position from the treatment plan” — a mental process (evaluation and judgment) and a mathematical concept (numerical comparison of positions). Comparing two positions is a determination a practitioner performs by inspection.
“modifying the one or more appliances when the comparison … exceeds an efficacy threshold” — a mental process. As claimed, this is a decision to change a design, not a physical act of manufacture. The specification defines an “appliance design” as “layouts, configurations, designs, instructions … 3D models, molds, configuration data, dimensions” (¶ [0049]) and describes the modification as performed by or for a human designer (¶¶ [0078]–[0079]). The threshold determination is a mathematical comparison (¶ [0053], expressed as a percentage).
Claims 24 and 25 recite the same abstract idea as claim 1, in system and computer-readable-medium form respectively, and are analyzed in the same manner. A claim reciting an abstract idea does not become eligible merely by recitation in a different statutory category. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 226–27 (2014).
The dependent claims do not remove the exception from the claims; each recites the exception in further detail.
Claim 2 recites that the efficacy threshold is 85%, which merely supplies a numerical value for the recited mathematical comparison.
Claims 3 and 26 recite representing the periodontal ligament as a 6 degree-of-freedom spring, or as one or more springs, displaced when a force criterion is met. A spring representation is a mathematical relationship between force and displacement, and its recitation therefore further specifies the mathematical model rather than adding an element beyond it.
Claims 4 and 5 recite that the force criteria corresponds to a plastic flow rule or a nonlinear hardening rule, both of which are named constitutive equations, i.e., mathematical relationships.
Claims 6 and 7 recite adjusting spring parameters based on the patient data or based on a tooth type, which amounts to selecting coefficients for the mathematical model, and additionally encompasses evaluation and judgment capable of mental performance.
Claim 8 recites simulating a first array of springs distributed along a shape of the bone to represent the PDL and a second array of springs to represent bone remodeling, which is a further specification of the same spring-based mathematical model.
Claims 10 and 11 recite that the bone remodeling is based on elastic deformation or on a non-linear elastic model, again reciting named mathematical constitutive models.
Claim 13 recites simulating a solid element that changes density or stiffness, a high viscosity fluid that flows when a strain criterion is satisfied, a solid element that changes size based on a stress state, and/or a bi-phasic element that shifts phases under a stress state. Each alternative is a mathematical element formulation employed within the recited simulation.
Claim 14 recites evaluating an index of predictability and determining a treatment complexity therefrom, which is evaluation and judgment of the type performed in the human mind, and/or a mathematical determination.
Claims 15 and 19 recite using contact modeling when the treatment complexity is low and biomechanical modeling when the treatment complexity is high. Selecting between two mathematical models based on an evaluated complexity is itself a judgment, and the selected models are mathematical.
Claim 16 recites creating meshes using triangulation, applying boundary conditions and mechanical properties, determining contact points, defining a displacement field and normal and shear contact forces, associating contact points with each tooth, determining which mesh nodes correspond to the contact points, determining a net contact force and force points, and predicting a next tooth position. Triangulation, mesh generation, definition of fields and force vectors, vector summation, and calculation of a predicted position are all mathematical operations; the association of contact points and nodes is data correlation.
Claim 21 recites reconstructing three-dimensional shapes of teeth, apex positions, teeth root collisions, and level of orthodontic security, which is the computational reconstruction of geometry from data.
Step 2A Prong One: YES for all claims.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Integration into a Practical Application
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1, and claims 2–8, 10, 11, 13–16, 19, 21, and 26 by dependency. The only additional element is “receiving patient data, and a treatment plan comprising one or more appliances designed for treating a patient.” This is mere data gathering, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the exception. MPEP 2106.05(g); In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989); OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claim 1 recites no computer, processor, memory, scanner, imaging apparatus, or fabrication system, and no computer-implemented limitation.
Applying the considerations of MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05:
No improvement to a computer or other technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
No particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)). None is recited in claim 1.
No transformation (MPEP 2106.05 (c)). Data is converted into other data.
No particular treatment or prophylaxis (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). The preamble’s stated purpose “for designing an appliance for orthodontic treatment” is a field-of-use statement; the body of the claim never applies an appliance to a patient. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 9 and 20 add that the shape of bone is determined from imaging data and that the simulation uses cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. These limitations recite the data consumed by the mathematical model — that is, mere data gathering and selection of a data source — and constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g); Electric Power Grp. v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display”). Notably, neither claim affirmatively recites a scanning step or an imaging apparatus.
Claims 17, 18, 22, and 23 recite that the boundary conditions and mechanical properties are applied based on finite element modeling (FEM), that contact points are determined based on finite element analysis (FEA), and that the reconstruction utilizes a volumetric neural network including a u-net and/or a v-net. These are recited at a high level of generality as tools for performing the recited mathematics, with no disclosed modification to or improvement in the techniques themselves; the specification states only that the modeling module “may use” FEM, FEA, and “a u-net and/or a v-net” (¶¶ [0067], [0071]). Reciting a conventional numerical or machine-learning technique and instructing that it be applied in the orthodontic field amounts to an instruction to “apply” the exception with generic tools and generally links the exception to a technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(f), (h); Alice, 573 U.S. at 223.
Claims 24 and 25. The additional elements are “one or more processors,” “a memory coupled to the one or more processors” storing “computer-program instructions,” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” whose instructions are executed by “at least one processor of a computing device.” These are recited generically, without structural or functional detail, and the specification describes them as any conventional computing device — “any type or form of computing device,” including “laptops, tablets, desktops, servers, cellular phones,” and “any other suitable physical processor” (¶¶ [0039]–[0043]). Such generic computer components merely serve as a tool to perform the exception and do not integrate it into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f); Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24; Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2A Prong Two: NO for all claims. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B — Significantly More
The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Receiving the patient data and treatment plan (all claims), and obtaining or using imaging or CBCT data (claims 9 and 20), constitute extra-solution activity that, re-evaluated at Step 2B, is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Receiving or obtaining data for use in a subsequent calculation has repeatedly been so characterized. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) and (g); Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355; OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363.
The generic processor, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable medium of claims 24 and 25 perform only the conventional computer functions of storing and retrieving information in memory, executing instructions, and performing repetitive calculations, each of which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and (vi); Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26; Content Extraction & Transmission v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The specification’s description of these components at the highest level of generality — “any type or form of computing device,” “any other suitable physical processor,” “any other suitable memory device” (¶¶ [0039]–[0043], [0090]–[0092]) — is itself evidence of their conventionality. MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2).
The FEM, FEA, and volumetric neural network recitations of claims 17, 18, 22, and 23 identify conventional, off-the-shelf analytical techniques applied without modification. The specification discloses no unconventional implementation of these techniques, and they therefore do not supply an inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considered as an ordered combination, the claims recite the sequence of receiving data, constructing a mathematical model, calculating a predicted result, comparing that result to a target value, and changing data when a threshold is exceeded. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held such a sequence to lack an inventive concept. Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–56; SAP, 898 F.3d at 1167–68; Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nothing in the recited ordering requires unconventional operation of any component or effects an improvement in any technology.
Step 2B: NO for all claims.
Accordingly, claims 1–11 and 13–26 are directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concepts and mental processes) without significantly more, and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, 13, and 24-26 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanjani (WO 2017218951 A1), herein Shanjani, in view of Brawn (WO 2020112735 A2), herein Brawn.
Claim 1 is rejected because Shanjani teaches a method for designing an appliance for orthodontic treatment Shanjani ([00006] “Advantageously, the embodiments described herein provide high value data that allows the practitioner to quantitatively assess whether the orthodontic appliance is repositioning the patient's teeth as planned. Optionally, the aligner performance data can be used as feedback to adjust the patient's treatment plan, also known as "adaptive 35 closed-loop treatment," and can also inform the design and planning of future appliance-based orthodontic procedures.”)
Shanjani also teaches evaluating the one or more appliances by comparing the simulated tooth position to a desired tooth position from the treatment plan Shanjani ([000168] “The processed sensor data can include appliance performance information (evaluating the one or more appliances), e.g., whether the force(s), pressure(s), and/or tooth movement(s) produced by the appliance correlate well with the expected values for the planned orthodontic treatment (treatment plan). The expected values for a planned treatment may be determined by computer simulation (simulated tooth position). For example, an orthodontic appliance can be considered to be performing satisfactorily if: (I) the measured force and/or pressure values lie within the expected range for those values (comparing the desired tooth position), or is within 70% of a targeted value; (2) the pattern of force and/or pressure application on the teeth matches, or is similar to, the planned pattern (desired tooth position) for force and/or pressure application; (3) the amount of tooth movement achieved is within 70% of the planned movement; (4) the direction of tooth movement (tooth position) matches, or is similar to (comparing), the planned direction of tooth movement (desired tooth position); or combinations thereof.”)
Shanjani also teaches modifying the one or more appliances when the comparison between the simulated tooth position and the desired tooth position from the treatment plan exceeds an efficacy threshold Shanjani ([000170] “In step 1140, the orthodontic treatment plan prescribed to the patient is optionally modified based on the sensor data generated in step 1110 and/or the processed sensor data generated in step 1120. The modification step can be performed by a processor external to the patient's intraoral cavity, such as a remote device as in step 1130. Modifying the treatment plan can involve modifying a planned intermediate or final arrangement of the patient's teeth, modifying the teeth receiving cavity geometries of an orthodontic appliance (modifying one or more appliances) corresponding to (comparison between) a planned intermediate or final tooth arrangement (simulated tooth position and the desired tooth position), modifying the timing for wearing one or more appliances, modifying the order for wearing a series of appliances, or a combination thereof. For example, if the appliance performance information indicates that the tooth repositioning achieved by the orthodontic appliance is not satisfactory and the teeth are off-track, the treatment plan can be modified in order to move the patient's teeth back on track (e.g., mid-course correction). As another example, if the appliance performance information indicates that the appliance is not producing the desired force and/or pressure pattern on the teeth, the geometries of subsequent appliances can be adjusted accordingly to provide more accurate force and/or pressure application. By using the appliance performance information as feedback, the systems, methods, and devices of the present disclosure allow for adaptive, closed-loop orthodontic treatment (treatment plan) based on the actual response of the patient's teeth to treatment (treatment plan).”) See also Shanjani ([0097] “The appliances (one or more appliances) can be generated all at the same stage or time point, in sets or batches (e.g., at the beginning of one or more stages of the treatment), or one at a time, and the patient can wear each appliance until the pressure of each appliance on the teeth can no longer be felt or until the maximum amount (treatment plan exceeds an efficacy threshold) of expressed tooth movement for that given stage has been achieved.”) Although Shanjani teaches determining a tooth position and orientation resulting from application of one or more aligners, that “[t]he expected values for a planned treatment may be determined by computer simulation,” and model-fitting and system identification of the “tooth-periodontal ligament (PDL)-alveolar bone system,” including parametric modeling and non-linear system analysis (¶¶ [000010], [000132]–[000139], [000145], [000154], [000168]). Shanjani further teaches that force applied to a tooth displaces the tooth in its socket, “deforming the alveolar bone convexly towards the root at the leading edge, and producing concavity towards the root at the trailing edge,” with osteoblastic activity at concave surfaces and osteoclastic activity at convex surfaces (¶ [000158]).
Shanjani does not explicitly teach receiving patient data, and a treatment plan comprising one or more appliances designed for treating a patient or simulating bone remodeling from the patient data to determine a simulated tooth position of a tooth using the one or more appliances, wherein simulating bone remodeling includes simulating changes to a bone from stress at a boundary between the bone and a periodontal ligament from one or more forces applied to the tooth by the one or more appliances.
However, Brawn teaches receiving patient data, and a treatment plan comprising one or more appliances designed for treating a patient Brawn ([001126] “Described herein are devices, systems, and methods for measuring compliance with use of an orthodontic appliance (e.g., an orthodontic aligner or another orthodontic appliance disclosed herein) (method for designing an appliance for orthodontic treatment) or a light therapy apparatus, as well as methods for making and using the same. A system according to some embodiments of the invention is configured to monitor a patient's (or user's) compliance (treatment plan) with use of an orthodontic appliance pursuant to an orthodontic treatment program (treatment plan)... In some embodiments, a compliance devices can be configured to communicate data to or receive data (receiving patient data) from a data collection device. For example, the compliance device can communicate data to a transceiver of an orthodontic appliance (such as an aligner or a light therapy apparatus).”)
Brawn also teaches simulating bone remodeling from the patient data to determine a simulated tooth position of a tooth using the one or more appliances, wherein simulating bone remodeling includes simulating changes to a bone from stress at a boundary between the bone and a periodontal ligament from one or more forces applied to the tooth by the one or more appliances (Brawn [00160] “ln some embodiments, the patient is an adolescent or a pre-adolescent. In some such embodiments, the adolescent is undergoing a growth spurt. In some embodiments, the patient is a living subject that receives light treatment, e.g., light administered to the patient extra-orally or intra-orally. In some such embodiments, the patient wears an orthodontic appliance (e.g., a functional appliance or another appliance). "The orthodontic appliance can be worn or otherwise donned during the time the patient receives light treatment (e.g., during bone remodeling treatment).”) See also Brawn ([00548] “The orthopedic force can be exerted by an orthodontic appliance (using the one or more appliances), such as, for example, a Rapid Maxillary Expansion (RME) appliance. A RME appliance can exert orthopedic forces on the patient's molars (from the patient data) to open up and expand the maxillary suture for skeletal expansion of the upper jaw (as opposed to an orthodontic expansion where only the teeth move). Light therapy can be useful in these embodiments to accelerate the rate at which the maxillary bone grows and the gaps caused by the skeletal expansion are filled (to determine a simulated tooth position). ln one or more embodiments, the present methods are useful for accelerating the fill of bone and/or decreasing the potential for relapse or narrowing of the maxillary arch after orthodontic appliance removal. In one or more embodiments, the one or more emitters 332C emit light directed towards the midline of the palate such that boney regeneration is simulated through light therapy (simulating bone remodeling).” Brawn teaches the specific relationship recited — namely, that “[b]y applying pressure to a tooth, bone can be broken down at a leading edge of the tooth to facilitate tooth movement,” that “[n]ew bone is then created at a trailing edge of the tooth,” and that “[b]one is resorbed in (e.g., broken down) in areas of pressure between a tooth root and periodontium, and bone is deposited (created) in areas of tension between a tooth root and periodontium” (¶ [0003]). Brawn defines the periodontium as comprising “the periodontal ligament and the boney socket in which the periodontal ligament is disposed and which surround the tooth” (¶ [00163]); the pressure/tension region Brawn identifies is therefore the boundary between the bone and the periodontal ligament. Brawn further teaches that appliance-applied force “can also cause pressure on the periodontium” (¶ [00198]) and defines bone remodeling as encompassing “a change in the bone’s geometry” and changes in “bone shape, bone volume, bone density, or bone mineral content” (¶¶ [00180], [00244]) — i.e., the changes to bone that the recited simulation determines. Brawn quantifies the force applied per tooth by the appliance in grams of force (¶¶ [00194]–[00199]), and teaches determining patient-specific bone density and dental geometry from cone beam CT data and using that data to custom-design the appliance via CAD/CAM (¶¶ [00516]–[00517], [00521]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Brawn with Shanjani as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Brawn would modify Shanjani wherein modifying the one or more appliances when the comparison between the simulated tooth position and the desired tooth position from the treatment plan exceeds an efficacy threshold. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Brawn [00515]). Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani and Brawn teaches the claim 1 limitations.
Brawn teaches wherein simulating bone remodeling includes simulating a first array of springs distributed along a shape of bone to represent a periodontal ligament (PDL) and a second array of springs to represent bone remodeling Brawn ([0070] “FIG. 15A is an example of an aligner having an array (first array of multiple force and/or pressure sensors (springs) corresponding to each tooth (distributed along a shape of a bone) to provide a within-tooth pattern of force and/or pressure that may be used by the apparatuses described herein to determine an accurate estimation of tooth movement (to represent a periodontal ligament (PDL)) and therefore modify treatment (adaptive treatment). The intraoral appliance shown in FIG. 15A is an aligner, though any appliance may be used, and although only a single tooth is shown with an array, multiple arrays (second array of springs) (on multiple teeth) (to represent bone remodeling) may be included, similar to the example shown in FIGS. 8B-8C, e.g., capacitive touch sensor array.”) See also Brawn ([Fig. 15A] and [Fig. 8B].)
PNG
media_image1.png
667
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brawn Figure 15A Reference
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Brawn with Shanjani as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Brawn would modify Shanjani wherein simulating bone remodeling includes simulating a first array of springs distributed along a shape of bone to represent a periodontal ligament (PDL) and a second array of springs to represent bone remodeling. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Brawn [00515]). Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani and Brawn teaches the claim 8 limitations.
Shanjani teaches wherein the shape of bone is determined from imaging data Shanjani ([000183] “Scanner 1420 includes any means for obtaining a digital representation (e.g., images, surface topography data, etc.) of a patient's teeth (shape of bone) (e.g., by scanning physical models of the teeth such as casts 1421, by scanning impressions (shape of bone) taken of the teeth, or by directly scanning the intraoral cavity), which can be obtained either from the patient or from treating professional, such as an orthodontist, and includes means of providing the digital representation (determined from imaging data) to data processing system 1400 for further processing. Scanner 1420 may be located at a location remote with respect to other components of the system and can communicate image data (determined from imaging data) and/or information to data processing system 1400, for example, via a network interface 1424.”)
Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani and Brawn teaches the claim 8 limitations.
Shanjani does not explicitly teach wherein the bone remodeling is based on elastic deformation.
However, Brawn also teaches wherein the bone remodeling is based on elastic deformation Brawn ([00164] “As used herein, the term "flexibility" (elastic) relates to an object's resistance to deflection, deformation (deformation), and/or displacement by an applied force. For example, a mouthpiece or oral structure with greater flexibility is less resistant to deflection, deformation, and/or displacement when exposed to a force than a mouthpiece or oral structure with lower flexibility.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Brawn with Shanjani as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Brawn would modify Shanjani wherein the bone remodeling is based on elastic deformation. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Brawn [00515]). Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani and Brawn teaches the claim 8 limitations.
Shanjani does not explicitly teach wherein the bone remodeling is based on a non-linear elastic model.
However, Brawn teaches wherein the bone remodeling is based on a non-linear elastic model Brawn ([00165] “Flexibility is an extensive property of the object being desc1ibed, and thus is dependent upon the material from which the object is formed and particular physical characteristics of the object (e.g., shape and boW1dary conditions). For example, the flexibility of an object can be increased or decreased by selectively including in the object a material having a desired modulus of elasticity. The modulus of elasticity is an intensive property of the constituent material and describes an object's tendency to elastically (i.e., non-permanently) deform in response to an applied force. A material having a high modulus of elasticity will not deflect as much as a material having a low modulus of elasticity in the presence of an equally applied force. Thus, the flexibility of the object can be increased, for example, by introducing into the object and/or constructing the object of a material having a low modulus of elasticity. In another example, the flexibility of the object can be increased or decreased by changing the flexural modulus of a material of which the object is constructed. Flexural modulus is used to describe the ratio of the applied stress on an object in flexure to the corresponding strain in the outermost portions of the object. The flexural modulus, rather than the modulus of elasticity, is used to characterize particular materials, for example plastics, that do not have material properties that are linear over a range of conditions. An object with a first flexural modulus is less elastic and has a greater strain on the outermost portions of the object than an object with a second flexural modulus lower than the first flexural modulus. Thus, the flexibility of an object can be increased by including in the object a material having a low flexural modulus.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Brawn with Shanjani as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Brawn would modify Shanjani wherein the bone remodeling is based on a non-linear elastic model. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Brawn [00515]). Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani and Brawn teaches the claim 1 limitations.
Shanjani does not explicitly teach wherein simulating the changes to the bone comprises simulating one or more of: a solid element that changes a density or a stiffness, a high viscosity fluid that flows when a strain criterion is satisfied, a solid element that changes size based on a stress state of the solid element, and/or a bi-phasic element that shifts phases under a stress state.
However, Brawn teaches wherein calculating stresses at the boundary comprises simulating one or more of: a solid element that changes a density or a stiffness, a high viscosity fluid that flows when a strain criterion is satisfied, a solid element that changes size based on a stress state of the solid element, and/or a bi-phasic element that shifts phases under a stress state Brawn ([0568] “In one or more embodiments, the one or more emitters 332C emit light directed towards the midline of the palate (solid element) such that boney regeneration is simulated through light therapy (simulating one or more of: a solid element that changes a density or a stiffness).”) See also Brawn ([00949] “In this manner, in one or more embodiments, a force can be calculated, in part, by measuring the tension or stiffness of the appliance's wire (or spring or similar mechanism), e.g., when such force is exerted on one or more teeth. Furthermore, in one or more embodiments, the appliance's wire (or spring or similar mechanism) is constructed from a material that is sensitive to temperature such that the stiffness of the wire, and therefore the heavy force exerted by that wire, can change based on the temperature of the wire. For example, in one or more embodiments, the stiffness of the wire (or spring or similar mechanism) increases when the wire temperature increases, and decreases when the wire temperature decreases.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Brawn with Shanjani as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Brawn would modify Shanjani wherein calculating stresses at the boundary comprises simulating one or more of: a solid element that changes a density or a stiffness. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Brawn [00515]). Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani and Brawn teaches the claim 1 limitations.
Shanjani teaches wherein evaluating the one or more appliances further comprises evaluating an index of predictability and determining a treatment complexity based on the index of predictability Shanjani ([000184] “The spatial distribution pattern of force/pressure on one or more of the subject's teeth may be used to determine the orientation of the forces being applied by a dental appliance with respect to the tooth, and may be used to determine a prediction for tooth movement based on the current and/or proposed forces applied to the teeth.”) Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 24
Claim 24 is rejected because it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
Claim 25
Claim 25 is rejected because it is the non-transitory computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.Claim 26 Claim 26 recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein simulating bone remodeling includes representing the periodontal ligament as one or more springs that is displaced by the one or more forces applied to the tooth from the one or more appliances.”
Shanjani in view of Brawn teaches the subject matter of claim 1 for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Shanjani further teaches representing the periodontal ligament as a spring element that is displaced by force applied to the tooth.
Shanjani teaches determining the mechanical impedance of a tooth from force applied to the tooth by the intraoral appliance and the resulting motion, and expressly teaches modeling the tooth as a second-order mechanical system: “[T]he system may estimate mechanical impedance based on underdamped second order system (e.g., as a logarithmic decrement of an underdamped second order system). In this case, the apparatus may be configured to measure the teeth (and/or appliance) response to a perturbing force, such as an input vibration or force applied to the teeth. … The apparatus may then determine the peak-to-peak decay of the underdamped oscillation and the period of the system; from these values, the apparatus may then derive the damped natural frequency, the natural frequency, and a damping ratio. In a second order system, these values may define the impedance.” (¶ [000136].) Shanjani further teaches that “[f]or linear systems, the apparatus may fit parameter of a parametric model of the mechanical impedance to a measured bode plot,” and for non-linear systems “may use generalized frequency response functions” (¶ [000137]).
An underdamped second-order mechanical system, as expressly recited by Shanjani, is by definition constituted of a mass, a spring (stiffness) element, and a damper. The natural frequency, damped natural frequency, and damping ratio that Shanjani teaches deriving are each defined in terms of the spring stiffness constant. Accordingly, Shanjani’s disclosure of representing the tooth system as an underdamped second-order system from which stiffness-dependent parameters are derived is a disclosure of representing that system as comprising one or more springs. Shanjani further identifies the periodontal ligament as the compliant element whose stiffness is being characterized. Shanjani teaches that “[m]odel-fitting and system identification methods can be used to deduce mechanical properties of the tooth-periodontal ligament (PDL)-alveolar bone system based on the response signal,” and that “the stiffness of the tooth-PDL may vary with different stages of tooth movement” (¶ [000145]). Shanjani thus expressly attributes the stiffness parameter of its model to the tooth–PDL structure. Shanjani additionally teaches that the displacement giving rise to this response is caused by force applied to the tooth by the appliance. Shanjani teaches that “a force applied to the labial surface of the lower incisor can displace the tooth in its socket, deforming the alveolar bone convexly towards the root at the leading edge, and producing concavity towards the root at the trailing edge” (¶ [000158]), and that “[a]s used herein, deformations and displacements can be linear, angular, or both” (¶ [00005]). Shanjani further teaches measuring the force applied to the teeth by the appliance (¶¶ [00007], [000131]–[000134]) and correlating that force with the resulting motion (¶¶ [000135], [000139]).
Brawn, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, teaches that the force applied to the tooth by the appliance produces pressure and tension at the boundary between the tooth root/periodontium — the periodontium comprising “the periodontal ligament and the boney socket in which the periodontal ligament is disposed” — and that such pressure and tension respectively cause bone resorption and bone deposition (¶¶ [0003], [00163], [00198]).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanjani, in view of Wang (US 20200214801 A1), herein Wang.
Claim 2 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani and Brawn teaches claim 1 limitations.
Shanjani does not explicitly teach wherein the efficacy threshold is 85%.
However, Wang teaches wherein the efficacy threshold is 85% Brawn ([001461] “The varying at least one shell element of the 3D model comprises using a parametric algorithm to vary a parametric thickness map. The similarity value may compare the first modeled force, the second modeled force, or any combination thereof to the treatment force, and wherein the similarity value is greater than 50%.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang with Shanjani as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Wang would modify Shanjani wherein the efficacy threshold is 85%. The benefit of doing so would provide the parameters and/or values of the finite element shell model from block 140 are varied in order to improve the orthodontic appliance. (Wang [0064]). Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanjani, in view of Brawn, and in further view of Morton (WO 2019089773 - A1), herein Morton.
Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani and Brawn teaches claim 1.
The combination of Shanjani and Brawn does not explicitly teach wherein simulating bone remodeling includes using a 6 degree-of-freedom (DOF) spring to represent a periodontal ligament (PDL) and the bone remodeling is simulated to occur when the 6 DOF spring is displaced according to a force applied to the 6 DOF spring meeting a force criteria.
However, Morton teaches wherein simulating bone remodeling includes using a 6 degree-of-freedom (DOF) spring to represent a periodontal ligament (PDL) Morton ([0080] “In many embodiments, the appliance and one or more attachments (spring) are configured to move one or more teeth along a tooth movement vector comprising six degrees of freedom (6 degree of freedom), in which three degrees of freedom are rotational and three degrees of freedom are translation. Embodiments disclosed herein can provide differential moment vectors based on a moment and a counter moment to each of a plurality of teeth (represent a periodontal ligament).”) See also Morton ([0081] “The present disclosure provides orthodontic systems and related methods for designing and providing improved or more effective tooth moving systems for eliciting a desired tooth movement and/or repositioning teeth into a desired arrangement (according to a force applied to the 6 DOF spring meeting a force criteria).”) See also Morton ([0095] “In step 210, a movement path to move one or more teeth from an initial arrangement (a force applied to the 6 DOF spring) to a target arrangement (meeting a force criteria) is determined. The initial arrangement can be determined from a mold or a scan of the patient's teeth or mouth tissue (periodontic ligaments), e.g., using wax bites, direct contact scanning, x-ray imaging, tomographic imaging, sonographic imaging, and other techniques for obtaining information about the position and structure of the teeth, jaws, gums and other orthodontically relevant tissue. From the obtained data, a digital data set can be derived that represents the initial (e.g., pretreatment) arrangement of the patient's teeth and other tissues. Optionally, the initial digital data set is processed to segment the tissue constituents from each other. For example, data structures that digitally represent individual tooth crowns can be produced. Advantageously, digital models of entire teeth can be produced, including measured or extrapolated (simulates) hidden surfaces and root structures, as well as surrounding bone and soft tissue (bone remodeling). In any of these variations, a digital model of the patient's dentition, including all or some of the patient's teeth, including one or both of the upper and lower jaw. The digital model may be a literal model (e.g., models including relative surfaces and/or volumes), representative (from which actual surface may be derived within a desired level of precision) or some combination thereof.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Morton with Shanjani and Brawn as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Morton would modify Shanjani and Brawn wherein modifying the one or more appliances when the comparison between the simulated tooth position and the desired tooth position from the treatment plan exceeds an efficacy threshold. The benefits of doing so provides an appliance can be constructed with a feature at a location on the appliance sized and shaped to provide beneficial forces to the tooth when the patient bites. (Morton [0009]). Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani, Brawn, and Morton teaches the claim 3 limitations.
The combination of Shanjani and Brawn does not explicitly teach wherein the force criteria corresponds to a plastic flow rule.
However, Morton teaches wherein the force criteria corresponds to a plastic flow rule Morton ([0013-0014] “For each tooth model, comparing the positioning of said tooth model in the initial reference model and in the reference model obtained from the preceding steps, called "updated reference model", in order to determine the movement of the teeth between steps a) and b ), and/or comparing the shapes of the initial reference model and of the reference model obtained from the preceding steps, called "updated reference model", in order to determine the deformation and/or movement of teeth (force criteria corresponds to a plastic flow) between steps a) and b ).”) See also Morton ([0553-0554] “The comparison between the actual situation, evaluated with the updated reference model determined at step c'), and the expected situation, evaluated with the comparison model, allows it to be determined whether the orthodontic appliance is correctly fulfilling its function. If applicable, it also allows it to be determined what the problem is, for example, too much force (force criteria) on a tooth along a direction.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Morton with Shanjani and Brawn as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Morton would modify Shanjani and Brawn wherein the force criteria corresponds to a plastic flow rule. The benefits of doing so provides an appliance can be constructed with a feature at a location on the appliance sized and shaped to provide beneficial forces to the tooth when the patient bites. (Morton [0009]). Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani, Brawn, and Morton teaches claim 3.
Shanjani does not explicitly teach adjusting spring parameters of the 6 DOF spring based on the patient data.
However, Brawn teaches adjusting spring parameters of the 6 DOF spring based on the patient data Brawn ([00275] “Adjusting an orthodontic appliance can alter the direction of a force exerted on one or more teeth (patient data). Light can be administered to one or more selected teeth (patient data) for up to an hour prior to adjusting an orthodontic appliance. Adjusting the orthodontic appliance can cause a force to be exerted (adjusting spring parameters of the 6 DOF spring) on the one or more teeth. Adjusting the orthodontic appliance can change the magnitude or direction, or both, of the force exerted. Adjusting the orthodontic appliance can comprise tightening, loosening or replacing one or more of the appliances, wires, springs or elastic devices (adjusting spring parameters of the 6 DOF spring). Different sizes, materials, or shapes of such components can be used. Light can then be administered daily to the one or more selected teeth, until the next adjustment of the orthodontic appliance. This administration of light can reduce, minimize, or prevent tooth-root resorption, bone resorption, tissue inflammation, periodontium resorption or cementum resorption.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Brawn with Shanjani as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Brawn would modify Shanjani wherein adjusting spring parameters of the 6 DOF spring based on the patient data. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Brawn [00515]). Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani, Brawn, and Morton teaches the claim 3 limitations.
Shanjani does not explicitly teach adjusting spring parameters of the 6 DOF spring based on a tooth type corresponding to a periodontal ligament (PDL).
However, Brawn also teaches adjusting spring parameters of the 6 DOF spring based on a tooth type corresponding to a periodontal ligament (PDL) Brawn ([00275] “Adjusting an orthodontic appliance can alter the direction of a force exerted on one or more teeth (tooth type). Light can be administered to one or more selected teeth (tooth type) for up to an hour prior to adjusting an orthodontic appliance. Adjusting the orthodontic appliance can cause a force to be exerted (adjusting spring parameters of the 6 DOF spring) on the one or more teeth. Adjusting the orthodontic appliance can change the magnitude or direction, or both, of the force exerted. Adjusting the orthodontic appliance can comprise tightening, loosening or replacing one or more of the appliances, wires, springs or elastic devices (adjusting spring parameters of the 6 DOF spring). Different sizes, materials, or shapes of such components can be used. Light can then be administered daily to the one or more selected teeth, until the next adjustment of the orthodontic appliance. This administration of light can reduce, minimize, or prevent tooth-root resorption, bone resorption (corresponding to a periodontal ligament), tissue inflammation (corresponding to a periodontal ligament), periodontium resorption or cementum resorption.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Brawn with Shanjani as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Brawn would modify Shanjani wherein adjusting spring parameters of the 6 DOF spring based on a tooth type corresponding to a periodontal ligament (PDL). The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Brawn [00515]). Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanjani, in view of Brawn, in view of Morton, and in further view of Salah (US 20190125493 A1), herein Salah.
Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani, Brawn, and Morton teaches the claim 3 limitations.
The combination of Shanjani, Brawn, and Morton does not explicitly teach wherein the force criteria corresponds to a nonlinear hardening rule.
However, Salah teaches wherein the force criteria corresponds to a nonlinear hardening rule Salah ([0560] “In one embodiment, step e') leads to generating a report specifying how to modify the tension (force criteria) of the orthodontic appliance archwire in place or how to create a new aligner (corresponds to a nonlinear hardening rule).”) See also Salah ([0159] “The invention also concerns the use of a method for checking the shape of teeth according to the invention in order to: visualize and/or measure and/or detect dental plaque, and/or an incipient cavity, and/or a microcrack, and/or wear, for example resulting from bruxism (force criteria) or the implementation of an orthodontic appliance, active or passive, notably in the event of breaking (corresponds to a nonlinear hardening rule) or detaching of an orthodontic archwire.”) Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim(s) 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanjani, in view of Brawn, and in further view of Wang.
Claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani and Brawn teach the claim 14 limitations.
The combination of Shanjani and Brawn does not explicitly teach wherein simulating bone remodeling includes contact modeling when the treatment complexity is low.
However, Wang teaches wherein simulating bone remodeling includes contact modeling when the treatment complexity is low Wang ([0115] “In a non-limiting example of using a parameter thickness map to model an orthodontic appliance includes the modeling (contact modeling) of an aligner. In some embodiments, an orthodontic appliance provides an arch expansion force. In some embodiments, the aligner can be modeled (contact modeling) for a patient missing at least one tooth (treatment complexity), which results in decreased contact between the orthodontic appliance and teeth in comparison to a patient having said missing at least one tooth. Such a missing tooth results in a decreased level of anchorage, and parametric modeling with parametric thickness maps can be used to iteratively optimize (treatment complexity is low) the force system.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang with Shanjani and Brawn as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Wang would modify Shanjani and Brawn wherein simulating bone remodeling includes contact modeling when the treatment complexity is low. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Wang [0064]). Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani, Brawn and Wang teaches the claim 15 limitations.
Shanjani teaches wherein evaluating the one or more appliances further comprises …using triangulation Shanjani ([00099] “The shape of the monitoring device (one or more devices) can be varied as desired, e.g., circular, ellipsoidal, triangular (using triangulation), square, rectangular, etc.”)
Shanjani also teaches associating contact points that correspond to each tooth Shanjani ([00096] “In some embodiments, orthodontic appliances, such as the appliance illustrated in FIG. 1A, impart forces to the crown of a tooth and/or an attachment positioned on the tooth at one or more points of contact between a tooth receiving cavity of the appliance and received tooth and/or attachment.”)
Shanjani also teaches for each current tooth position, determining a net contact force and force points for each associated contact point Shanjani ([pdf page 39 | Lines 25-27] “the processor is configured to determine one or more of: a rate of movement of the patient's teeth (for each associated contact point), a rate of change in the force applied (determining a net contact force and force points) to the patient's teeth, and a force vector acting on the tooth (for each current toot position).”) See also Shanjani ([000131] “The force and/or pressure sensors can be configured to generate measurement data indicative of the contact force and/or pressure (e.g., amount, magnitude, direction, distribution, etc.) (determining a net contact force) between the appliance (forces points) and one or more of the patient's teeth (for each associated contact point). Optionally, the force and/or pressure sensors can be configured to generate measurement data indicative of the contact force and/or pressure between the appliance and an attachment coupled to the teeth. The measurement data can be processed (e.g., by the monitoring device or a remote device) to determine whether the measured force and/or pressure values are within a targeted range, e.g., for repositioning teeth, creating anchorage, etc. In some embodiments, the measurement data is used to compute the rate of change in the pressure and/or force applied to the teeth, which may correlate to the tooth movement rate. The rate of change of force and/or pressure can also be used to determine the stress relaxation of the appliance over time. Optionally, the measurement data can be used to compute other biomechanical parameters relevant to tooth repositioning, such as one or more moments applied to a tooth, one or more force couples applied to a tooth, and/or a ratio between the forces and moments applied to a tooth by the appliance (force-moment ratio).”)
Shanjani also teaches predicting a next tooth position for each current tooth position using the net contact force and force points Shanjani ([000184] “The spatial distribution pattern of force/pressure (using the net contact force) on one or more of the subject's teeth may be used to determine the orientation of the forces (force points) being applied by a dental appliance with respect to the tooth, and may be used to determine a prediction for tooth movement based on the current and/or proposed forces applied to the teeth (predicting a next tooth position for each current tooth position).”)
Shanjani also teaches for each tooth, determining which mesh nodes correspond to the contact points Shanjani ([00072] “FIG. 16A is an example of an apparatus including an electrical trace that is bonded directly to the subject's teeth and configured to interact with electrical circuitry and/or power on a wearable orthodontic piece (e.g., aligner). In this example, wearing the aligner properly on the teeth completes a circuit in the aligner that may accurately trace compliance and/or may activate a sensor (e.g., biosensor). FIG. 16B illustrates the open circuit between the appliance (e.g., aligner, on left) and conductive traces on teeth when the appliance is not worn on the teeth or is improperly worn. FIG. 16C shows the closed circuit, when the appliance is worn so that the nodes on the teeth are coupled to the nodes on the appliance.”) See also Shanjani ([Figure 16A], [Figure 16B], and [Figure 16C].)
PNG
media_image2.png
675
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shanjani Figure 16A, 16B, and 16C Reference
The combination of Shanjani and Brawn does not explicitly teach creating a plurality of meshes corresponding to each tooth, attachment, and aligner, applying boundary conditions and mechanical properties to the plurality of meshes, determining contact points between the plurality of meshes, and defining a displacement field, a normal contact force, and a shear contact force for each contact point.
However, Wang teaches creating a plurality of meshes corresponding to each tooth, attachment, and aligner Wang ([0079-0080] “Dental models of a patient's teeth and mouth can be obtained in a variety of ways. In some embodiments at block 120, a dental model of a patient's teeth is obtained with a dentition assessment. The patient's teeth can be scanned or imaged to build a 3D surface model of the patient's teeth using well known technology, such as X-rays, 3D X-rays, computer-aided tomographic images or data sets, and magnetic resonance images. These models (plurality of meshes) are typically a 3D mesh model of the patient's upper and lower arches, including both teeth and gingiva. See also Wang ([0080] After constructing a 3D model of the tooth surfaces (corresponding to each tooth), models of the patient's individual teeth can be derived. In one approach, individual teeth and other components (attachment, and aligner) are segmented to permit individual repositioning or removal of teeth in or from the digital data. The teeth in the model can be segmented either manually or automatically, as known in the art. Each tooth can then be represented by a 3D mesh model.”)
Wang also teaches applying boundary conditions and mechanical properties to the plurality of meshes Wang ([0219] “Topology optimization is a method of optimizing material layout within a given set of loads, boundary conditions, and constraints, with the goal of providing a defined performance, such as strength, displacement, rotation, and the like. An example of topological optimization was conducted on a single tooth to generate a localized section of an optimized orthodontic appliance (FIG. 8A-E).”)
PNG
media_image3.png
741
857
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wang Figure 8A, 8B, and 8C Reference
Wang also teaches determining contact points between the plurality of meshes Wang ([0148] “In some embodiments, at least one shell element value is randomly varied. In some embodiments of block 1570, the resulting intermediate 3D mesh model (also referred to herein as the "intermediate 3D model") takes the varied finite shell element model as an input, determines the force on at least one tooth (determining contact points), and compares that to a corresponding treatment force from block 1530 (between the plurality of meshes).”)
Wang also teaches defining a displacement field, a normal contact force, and a shear contact force for each contact point Wang ([0210] “Teeth can be moved in a lingual direction, but tipping may occur (FIG. 13C). Improved treatment is provided by applying a moment to the crown of the teeth to be moved. Using a model disclosed herein, an orthodontic appliance is designed with control on root torque. In the model, an input function and/or constraint is provided to control the tipping moment. The input function and/or constraint can include a bubble-like feature (a power ridge feature) that is designed to control tipping moment. Further constraint on the displacement on the aligner to be smaller than a threshold value can be introduced to avoid flaring issues with the orthodontic appliance.”) See also Wang ([Figure 13 B] and [Figure 13 C].)
PNG
media_image4.png
695
555
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wang Figure 13B and Figure 13C Reference
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang with Shanjani and Brawn as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Wang would modify Shanjani and Brawn wherein defining a displacement field, a normal contact force, and a shear contact force for each contact point. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Wang [0064]). Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 17
Claim 17 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani, Brawn, and Wang teaches the claim 16 limitations.
The combination of Shanjani and Brawn does not explicitly teach wherein applying boundary conditions and mechanical properties is based on finite element modeling.
However, Wang teaches wherein applying boundary conditions and mechanical properties is based on finite element modeling (FEM) Wang ([0219] “Topology optimization is a method of optimizing material layout within a given set of loads, boundary conditions (applying boundary conditions), and constraints, with the goal of providing a defined performance, such as strength (mechanical properties), displacement, rotation, and the like. An example of topological optimization was conducted on a single tooth to generate a localized section of an optimized orthodontic appliance (FIG. 8A-E).”) See also Wang ([0005] “The method may also include generating an initial 3D model of an aligner, the initial 3D model comprising a plurality of tooth-receiving cavities to receive the patient's teeth being positioned to produce the treatment force, producing a finite element shell model (based on finite element modeling) comprising a plurality of shell elements according to the initial 3D model, determining a first modeled force based on the finite element shell model, varying at least one shell element of the finite element shell model, thereby generating at least one intermediate 3D model, the intermediate 3D model comprising a second modeled force to move the patient's teeth toward the final position, comparing at least one of the first modeled force and the second modeled force with the treatment force to provide a similarity value, and repeating the varying until a threshold shell element value, a threshold similarity value, or a combination thereof is obtained.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang with Shanjani and Brawn as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Wang would modify Shanjani and Brawn wherein applying boundary conditions and mechanical properties is based on finite element modeling. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Wang [0064]). Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani, Brawn, and Wang teaches the claim 16 limitations.
The combination of Shanjani and Brawn does not explicitly teach teaches wherein determining contact points is based on finite element analysis.
However, Wang also teaches wherein determining contact points is based on finite element analysis (FEA) Wang ([0005] “determining a first modeled force based on the finite element shell model (determining contact points), varying at least one shell element of the finite element shell model, thereby generating at least one intermediate 3D model (based on finite element analysis), the intermediate 3D model comprising a second modeled force to move the patient's teeth (contact points) toward the final position.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang with Shanjani and Brawn as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Wang would modify Shanjani and Brawn wherein determining contact points is based on finite element analysis. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Wang [0064]). Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim(s) 19-23 is rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanjani, in view of Brawn, in view of Wang, and in further view of Morton.
Claim 19
Claim 19 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani, Brawn, and Wang teaches the claim 14 limitations.
Shanjani teaches wherein simulating bone remodeling includes using biomechanical modeling Shanjani ([000131] “Optionally, the measurement data can be used to compute (simulating bone remodeling) other biomechanical parameters (using biomechanical modeling) relevant to tooth repositioning, such as one or more moments applied to a tooth, one or more force couples applied to a tooth, and/or a ratio between the forces and moments applied to a tooth by the appliance (force-moment ratio).”)
The combination of Shanjani, Brawn, and Wang does not explicitly teach when the treatment complexity is high.
However, Morton teaches when the treatment complexity is high Morton ([000145] “Furthermore, the final position of a first tooth movement path can be used as an initial position for a second movement path, allowing a tooth to be moved over a chain of trajectories to accomplish complex orthodontic movement (treatment complexity is high) (such as round-tripping, for example).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Morton with Shanjani, Brawn, and Wang as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Morton would modify Shanjani, Brawn, and Wang when the treatment complexity is high. The benefits of doing so provides an appliance can be constructed with a feature at a location on the appliance sized and shaped to provide beneficial forces to the tooth when the patient bites. (Morton [0009]). Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani, Brawn, Wang, and Morton teaches the claim 19 limitations.
Shanjani does not explicitly teach wherein simulating bone remodeling including using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data.
However, Brawn teaches wherein simulating bone remodeling including using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data Brawn ([001462] “The majority of root resorption associated with orthodontic treatment averages between 0.4 and 1.5 mm (Nimeri, G. et al., ''The effect of photobiomodulation on root resorption during orthodontic treatment", Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry 2014:6 1-8; Linge BO, Linge L. "Apical root resorption in upper anterior teeth", Eur J Orthod. 1983;5:] 73-183; Lund Het al., ''Apical root resorption during orthodontic treatment. A prospective study using cone beam CT'' (using cone beam computed tomography), Angle Orthod. 2012;82:480---487; Makedonas D et al., ''Root resorption diagnosed with cone beam computed tomography after 6 months and at the end of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances", Angle Orthod. 2013:83(3):389-393).”) See also Brawn ([00516] “ln one or more embodiments, an apparatus is configured to contact and/or be conformal with the alveolar soft tissue of any human patient: in other embodiments, an apparatus can be configured to be conformal with the alveolar soft tissue of a specific human patient. example, the apparatus can be configured to be conformal with any human patient's, or to a specific human patient's, particular dental geometry, for example, using information obtained from CT scans (e.g., cone beam CT scans (cone beam computed tomography), models (simulating bone remodeling) of the patient's jaw, intra-oral digital scanned models, and/or photographs of the patient’s jaw.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Brawn with Shanjani as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Brawn would modify Shanjani wherein simulating bone remodeling including using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Brawn [00515]). Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 21
Claim 21 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani, Brawn, Wang, and Morton teaches the claim 19 limitations.
Morton teaches wherein evaluating the one or more appliances further comprises reconstructing three-dimensional (3D) shapes of at least one of: teeth, apex positions, teeth root collisions, and level of orthodontic security See also Morton ([000145] “FIGS. 7A and 7B illustrate how multiple favorable facet contacts can be used in conjunction to produce a net tooth-moving force, in accordance with embodiments. FIG. 7A illustrates a tooth 700 with a plurality of facets 710 and 720. An appliance may be used to apply bite forces selectively on facets 710 and 720. For example, an appliance can be worn on an opposing tooth (not shown) that includes surface features to contact facets 710 and 720. An appliance can also be worn on tooth 700, which can optionally have occlusal surface features on facets 710 and 720 to apply reaction forces through contact with an opposing tooth. The resulting forces on facets 710 and 720 are illustrated as Fl and F2, respectively. The forces can be represented as a 3-dimensional vector (three-dimensional (3D) shapes), and can be produced in a direction orthogonal to the surface at their respective points of contact (teeth root collisions, and level of orthodontic security). The magnitude of the forces can be adjusted (reconstructing) by changing the size and position of the occlusal features (teeth and apex positions), as well as by adjusting their material properties such as elasticity.”) See also Morton ([00097] “Having both an initial position and a target position for each tooth, a movement path can be defined for the motion of each tooth. In some embodiments, the movement paths are configured to move the teeth in the quickest fashion with the least amount of round-tripping to bring the teeth from their initial positions to their desired target positions. The tooth paths can optionally be segmented, and the segments can be calculated so that each tooth's motion within a segment stays within threshold limits of linear and rotational translation. In this way, the end points of each path segment can constitute a clinically viable repositioning, and the aggregate of segment end points can constitute a clinically viable sequence of tooth positions, so that moving from one point to the next in the sequence does not result in a collision of teeth (orthodontic security). In some variations a system may include a movement path determination engine that may use the initial patient dentition/bite data (which may be held in an initial patient dentition/bite datastore accessible by the movement path determination engine) and the target tooth position from the target tooth arrangement engine, to determine one or more tooth movement paths. The movement path determination engine may use one or more rules (e.g., a ruleset) for clinically acceptable tooth movement, which may be stored in a data structure (e.g., a clinically acceptable tooth movement datastore) as well as the initial patient dentition/bite data and the target tooth (target dentition) arrangement data to generate one or more movement paths.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Morton with Shanjani, Brawn, and Wang as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Morton would modify Shanjani, Brawn, and Wang wherein evaluating the one or more appliances further comprises reconstructing three-dimensional (3D) shapes of at least one of: teeth, apex positions, teeth root collisions, and level of orthodontic security. The benefits of doing so provides an appliance can be constructed with a feature at a location on the appliance sized and shaped to provide beneficial forces to the tooth when the patient bites. (Morton [0009]). Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 22
Claim 22 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani, Brawn, Wang, and Morton teaches the claim 21 limitations.
The combination of Shanjani and Brawn does not explicitly teach wherein reconstructing utilizes a volumetric neural network.
However, Wang teaches wherein reconstructing utilizes a volumetric neural network Wang ([0040] “FIG. 8A-E shows an example of topological optimization for providing optimized force for a tooth. FIG. 8A shows a 3D canine tooth depicted; FIG. 8B shows an initial geometry for a portion of an orthodontic appliance for the canine tooth; FIG. 8C shows an example 3D model (volumetric neural network) of the portion of the orthodontic appliance with the canine tooth using volumetric elements; FIG. 8D shows an example of topologically optimized contours of the modeled portion of the orthodontic appliance to reduce tipping of the canine, and the index provides the magnitude of the contour at a location; and FIG. 8E shows an optimized portion of the orthodontic appliance providing reduced tipping to the canine.”) See also Wang ([0125] “FIG. 14 depicts a schematic of method 1400 for determining the geometry of an orthodontic appliance using topological optimization. Method 1400 provides an example process for determining the geometry of an orthodontic appliance using an initial 3D model and a finite volumetric element model. At block 1410, a treatment plan is developed. At block 1420 a dentition assessment is obtained. At block 1420, a dentition assessment is obtained for each stage of the treatment plan. In some embodiments, the dentition assessment is used to produce a model of a patient's teeth (reconstructing), and at block 1440 an initial 3D model of an orthodontic appliance can be produced (utilizes a volumetric neural network). Further at block 1440, a finite volumetric element model of the orthodontic appliance can be generated.”) See also Wang ([Figure 14].)
PNG
media_image5.png
817
736
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wang Figure 14 Reference
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang with Shanjani and Brawn as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Wang would modify Shanjani and Brawn wherein reconstructing utilizes a volumetric neural network. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Wang [0064]). Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 23
Claim 23 is rejected because the combination of Shanjani, Brawn, Wang and Morton teaches the claim 22 limitations.
Shanjani does not explicitly teach wherein the volumetric neural network includes at least one of a u-net and a v-net.
However, Brawn teaches wherein the volumetric neural network includes at least one of a u-net and a v-net Brawn ([001501] “TI1en, in order to study the bone density (u-net in the form of x-rays) and volumetric changes in the alveolar bone (v-net changes from cone beam computed tomography), micro-computerized tomography (micro-CT) images (volumetric neural network includes a v-net) were obtained. All measurements were perfom1ed for the interradicular area of the first molar ( region of interest- I; RO 1-1) and the area between the distal roots of the first and the mesial roots of the second molar (ROi-2).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Brawn with Shanjani as the references deal with systems and methods for improving treatment planning and orthodontic appliance design. Brawn would modify Shanjani wherein the volumetric neural network includes at least one of a u-net and a v-net. The benefits of doing so provides the ability to modify the rate of tooth movement, increase the rate of healing, or provide one or more other orthodontic benefits. (Brawn [00515]). Accordingly, claim 23 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISS CHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3832 or aniss.chad@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00pm EST.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/ANISS CHAD/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights