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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is final.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 11/14/2025.
Claims 6, 13, and 21 have been canceled.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-20, 22-24 are pending and have been considered
Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19, and 20 and have been amended.
In view of the amendments, the objections to specification have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendments, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-17, 19, 20, 22-24 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concepts) without significantly more. The arguments have been considered but were not found persuasive.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 for claims 2 and 18 has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendments and arguments, the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 16-20, 22, 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorbovskoy WO-2023085967-A1 in view of Kitching US 9326830 B2, is withdrawn. A new rejection is made, properly made final in view of the amendments.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 15-20, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorbovskoy WO-2023085967-A1, (“GOR”), in view of Kitching US 9326830 B2, (“KIT”) in further view of Akopov et al US-20190175303-A1 (“AKO”) .
Claim(s) 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorbovskoy WO-2023085967-A1, (“GOR”), in view of Kitching US 9326830 B2, (“KIT”) in further view of Akopov et al US-20190175303-A1 (“AKO”). ”) in further view of Miller, Chishti et al WO 0180765 A1 (“CHI”) .
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS has been considered by Examiner.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed on 11/14/2025 have been considered. Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 6, 13, and 21 have been canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-20, 22-24 are pending. Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19, and 20 and have been amended.
In view of the amendments, the objection to specification has been withdrawn. In view of the amendments, the objection to claims has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendments and arguments, the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C 101 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19, and 20 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concepts) without significantly more. The arguments have been considered but were not found persuasive. The analogy with McRo in terms of having “intermediate” “frames” and automating a process has not been found sufficient for determining the instant application is directed to a practical application. There are a number of differences between the claims in McRo and those in the instant application. For example, the claims in the instant application recite not only mental processes, but also mathematical concepts. The improvement in McRO is on the generation of the sequences/frames on the computer and that is the specific technology that is the ‘practical application’, while in the instant application, a manufacturing step is necessary for having the ‘practical application’.
Furthermore, the analysis here is provided following the Alice/Mayo procedure according to USPTO guidance. The independent claims in the instant application recite only abstract ideas, and there is no additional element to possibly integrate in a practical application. The rejections are maintained.
In contrast, Claims 2 and 18 recites additional elements related to manufacturing. In view of the amendments and arguments the rejection of claims 2 and 18 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 in particular in view of the amendment of the independent claims that recite the use of a non-linear function to calculate interproximal space with a non-linear function, the arguments have been found persuasive and the rejection of the independent claims over Gorbovskoy in view of Kitching has been withdrawn.
However, a new rejection was made, in further view of a reference in the same art, and which discloses such use of a non-linear function for that purpose.
Thus, all pending claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
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, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, of both a mental process and a mathematical concept, without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19, and 20 are directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea, of both a mental process and mathematical concept, highlighted in bold font in the text below.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
Claim 1 recites: a computer-implemented method for orthodontic treatment planning with one or more aligners, the method comprising:
determining an initial virtual pathway for each model tooth in the patient's jaw that is to be moved during orthodontic treatment, each initial virtual pathway being from a first position and/or orientation of a model tooth in a first arrangement to a second position and/or orientation of the model tooth in a second arrangement, (a person can perform that in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, connecting the initial position to a final position by a line/curve)
wherein each initial virtual pathway is divided into a plurality of first stages with each stage of the plurality of first stages defining a position and/or orientation of a respective one model tooth on the initial virtual pathway; (in the mind determining intermediary points on the path, or with a pen and paper marking points on the line, a segmentation of a path being also a mathematical concept)
calculating a space between adjacent pairs of model teeth at each first stage; (can be performed mentally or using pen and paper performing a simple geometrical calculation – also a mathematical concept)
defining a minimum space between adjacent pairs of model teeth permitted for orthodontic treatment; (observing, evaluating, judging which are mental processes as well as mathematical concept of a threshold) and
when one or more of the calculated spaces is less than the minimum space, (making a mental evaluation of two values, performing a comparison with a threshold which is mathematical concept)
defining a staging model that includes a plurality of second stages each defining the position and/or orientation of each model tooth at the respective second stage as the model tooth is moved from the first position and/or orientation to the second position and/or orientation (making a judgement and an alignment of a sequence of values, which can be done mentally or on paper, and assigning a specific meaning to the sequence, also data structuring)
defining two or more non-consecutive second stages as key- frame rows in which each tooth position and/or orientation in each key-frame row stage is a key frame, such that each second stage that is not a key-frame row is between a pair of key- frame rows including a first key-frame row that is the nearest key-frame row before the second stage and a second key-frame row that is the nearest key-frame row after the second stage, (making a judgement and an alignment of a sequence of values, which can be done mentally or on paper, and assigning a specific meaning to the sequence, also data structuring)
defining, for each second stage between the pair of key-frame rows, a non-linear function that generates the space between each pair of adjacent model teeth in the second stage as a function of the position and/or orientation of each model tooth of the pair of adjacent model teeth in each key-frame row of the pair of key-frame rows, and (making a judgement and an alignment of a sequence of values, which can be done mentally or on paper, and assigning a specific meaning to the sequence, also data structuring; also reciting non-linear function, which is a mathematical concept)
while one or more of the calculated spaces is less than the minimum space, iterating the following sequence one or more times until both of a first linear inequality constraint and a second linear inequality constraint are satisfied by each model tooth in each second stage between the pair of key-frame rows: (evaluation, judgement, also comparison with a threshold; mental process; also a mathematical concept )
for each model tooth of each at the at least one key-frame row of the pair of key-frame rows, varying the position and/or orientation of the model tooth from the first an initial position and/or orientation or from a previous position and/or orientation from a previous iteration until the first linear inequality constraint is satisfied by the non-linear function of each second stage between the pair of key-frame rows, (performing a modification, which can be done mentally or with pen and paper, also being a parameter variation)
varying the position and/or orientation of each the model tooth at the at least one from a present position and/or orientation or from the previous position and/or orientation from the previous iteration until the second linear inequality constraint is satisfied by the non-linear function of each second stage between the pair of key-frame rows,, (mentally or using pen and paper performing a series of simple changes in position/orientation – also inequality constraints – mental concept)
wherein after iterating, the plurality of second stages, in which each calculated space is greater than the minimum space, (an evaluation, judgement, also a comparison with a threshold)
defines an orthodontic treatment plan in which each second stage corresponds to an aligner for orthodontic treatment of a patient. (conceptualizing the sequence as a plan, as a sequence of steps that can be performed mentally and associating mentally each stage of the plan with a device that can implement that stage; also can be seen organizing a human activity in treatment context-)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
Under BRI the above claim limitations also recite a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The only limitations not reciting an abstract idea are in the preamble, which are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”.
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The only limitation that is not reciting an abstract idea is the preamble, which are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mental process and a mathematical concept and without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 17
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea, of both a mental process and mathematical concept, highlighted in bold font in the text below.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
Claim 17 recites: a computer-implemented method for orthodontic treatment planning with one or more aligners, in which an initial staging plan includes a plurality of stages of treatment and indicates one or more collisions between adjacent pairs of model teeth (mental process), the method comprising
defining a minimum space between adjacent pairs of model teeth; (observing, evaluating, judging which are mental processes, as well as mathematical concept of a threshold)
creating two or more non-consecutive key-frame rows in the initial staging plan, wherein in the at least one each key-frame row, each tooth position and/or orientation is a key frame, such that each stage that is not akey-frame row is between a pair of key-frame rows including a first key-frame row that is the nearest key-frame row before the stage and a second key-frame row that is the nearest key-frame row after the stage; (making a judgement and an alignment of a sequence of values, which can be done mentally or on paper, and assigning a specific meaning to the sequence, also data structuring)
creating, for each stage between the pair of key-frame rows, a non-linear function that generates a space between each pair of adjacent model teeth in the stage as a function of the position and/or orientation of each model tooth of the pair of adjacent model teeth in each key- frame row of the pair of key-frame rows; (mathematical concepts, also mental process)
and
while at least one collision exists in the staging plan, (making a mental evaluation of an two values, a potential overlap, performing a comparison of distance with a threshold which is mathematical concept)
iterating the following sequence one or more times until both of a first linear inequality constraint and a second linear inequality constraint are satisfied by each model tooth in each stage between the pair of key-frame rows: (a repeated process, in the mind or with pen and paper, evaluating/comparing measures, involving mathematical concepts of linearity and inequality)
for each model tooth of each key-frame row of the pair of key- frame rows, varying the position and/or orientation of the model tooth from an initial position and/or orientation or from a previous position and/or orientation from a previous iteration until the first linear inequality constraint is satisfied by the non-linear function of each stage between the pair of key-frame rows; (a repetition of a mental steps, performing a modification, which can be done mentally or with pen and paper, also being a parameter variation and reciting mathematical concepts if linearity, inequality)
varying the position and/or orientation of the model tooth from a present position and/or orientation or from the previous position and/or orientation from the previous iteration until the second linear inequality constraint is satisfied by the non- linear function of each stage between the pair of key-frame rows, (mentally or using pen and paper mental manipulation and evaluation/comparison – also a mathematical concept linearity, inequality)
wherein after iterating, the plurality of stages, in which each calculated space is greater than the minimum space, (an evaluation, judgement, also a comparison with a threshold)
defines an orthodontic treatment plan in which each stage corresponds to an aligner for orthodontic treatment of a patient. (conceptualizing the sequence as a plan, as a sequence of steps that can be performed mentally and associating mentally each stage of the plan with a device that can implement that stage)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
Under BRI the above claim limitations also recite a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The only limitations not reciting an abstract idea are in the preamble. ”. The limitation “for orthodontic treatment planning with one or more aligners”, indicates an intended field of use. Further, the preamble limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) these do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The only limitations not reciting an abstract idea are in the preamble. ”. The limitation “for orthodontic treatment planning with one or more aligners”, indicates an intended field of use. Further preamble limitations, which are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mental process and a mathematical concept and without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 3 is merely further limiting the mental process specifying what is modified while iterating (specifically, modifying the position of keyframe row). It has no additional elements.
Claim 4 is merely further limiting the mental process specifying what is modified in the position
(specifically, changing the position of keyframe row by one stage). It has no additional elements.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claims 3 and 4 combined
Claim 5 is merely further limiting the mental process specifying properties of what is modified while iterating (specifically, changing the position of each model tooth). The additional elements are Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception”.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 5.
Claim 6 additional elements are Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception.
Claim 21 has similar limitations as claim 6.
Claim 7 is merely further limiting the mental process, with elements remaining in the abstract idea of comparison, by specifying thresholds for comparison
Claim 22 has similar limitations as claim 7.
Claim 8 is merely further limiting the mental process specifying a threshold for comparison further specifying conditional iteration based on the threshold.
Claim 23 has similar limitations as claim 8.
Claim 9 is merely further limiting the mental process specifying characteristics of the position and orientation of tooth model
Claim 10 is merely further limiting the mental process specifying characteristics of the position and orientation of tooth model
Claim 24 has similar limitations as claim 10
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea, a mathematical expression for a vectorial representation that can also be performed in the mind or with pen and pencil, further refining the abstract idea from the independent claim. It has no additional elements.
Claim 24 has similar limitations as claim 11
When considered individually the added claim elements in the dependent claims further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, summarized here as “determining an orthodontic treatment plan by using key-frames and adjusting teeth positions while avoiding collisions”
The added elements in these dependent claims are similar to added elements analyzed with respect to the independent claims and have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea outlined in the independent claims analysis.
When the additional elements in the dependent claims are considered individually and as a combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance is not able to transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into an eligible subject matter.
Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-17, 19, 20, 22-24 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent Claims 2, 18 recite manufacturing a series of aligners for the patient with each aligner corresponding to one stage of the plurality of stages,
Per Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims continue to recite the abstract idea in the parent claim. However, per Step 2A, Prong 2 the limitation of manufacturing is considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, claims 2, 18 are found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 15-20, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorbovskoy WO-2023085967-A1, (“GOR”), in view of Kitching US 8038444 B2, (“KIT”) in further view of Akopov et al US-20190175303-A1 (“AKO”) .
Re claim 1 GOR teaches a computer-implemented method for orthodontic treatment planning with one or more aligners{ [Abstract] Systems and methods for generating stages for a treatment plan; [0002] aligners to treat misalignment} the method comprising:
determining an initial virtual pathway for each model tooth in the patient's jaw that is to be moved during orthodontic treatment, each initial virtual pathway being from a first position and/or orientation of a model tooth in a first arrangement to a second position and/or orientation of the model tooth in a second arrangement, wherein each initial virtual pathway is divided into a plurality of first stages with each stage of the plurality of first stages defining a position and/or orientation of a respective one model tooth on the initial virtual pathway; {Fig 10, path 1002; [Background [0002] The treatment plan progression typically involves stages of treatment, including an initial stage, one or more intermediate stages, and a final stage.; [0056] The staging processing engine 212 may be configured to determine the movement distance based on a path 1002 for each tooth 1000 from the initial position to the final position. [Abstract] generating a first stage of the one or more stages}
calculating a space between adjacent pairs of model teeth at each first stage; [0096] Selecting a particular stage on the slide bar 1710 may highlight the corresponding row in the staging region 1708 of the user interface. [0097] The user interface 1700 is shown include interproximal overlays 1712 which show an interproximal space (e.g., a measure of the space between two teeth)) } In BRI calculating a space between adjacent pairs of model teeth is interpreted as obtaining the measure of the space at each stage, as implicitly it is the only way to determine a measure of the space in a set of simulated steps.
defining a minimum space between adjacent pairs of model teeth permitted for orthodontic treatment;{ [0028] …detect or identify a collision between a tooth and two adjacent teeth; See also Fig 16} minimum space is interpreted the space when a collision occurs, essentially 0mm distance/space between teeth. The collision detection is seen in Fig.16, reproduced here for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GOR does not disclose, however KIT discloses:
when one or more of the calculated spaces is less than the minimum space defining a staging model that includes a plurality of second stages each defining the position and/or orientation of each model tooth at the respective second stage as the model tooth is moved from the first position and/or orientation to the second position and/or orientation { (8) Embodiments of the present invention provide apparatus, systems, and methods for automated staging of teeth, from an initial position to a final, corrected position; corrective paths between the initial positions of the teeth and their desired ending positions are then planned. These corrective paths generally include a plurality of intermediate positions between the initial and ending positions of the teeth Claim 2 determining a total distance each respective dental object will move; dividing the total distance for each dental object by its respective maximum distance per stage to determine a minimum number of movement stages for each dental object; }
defining two or more non-consecutive second stages as key- frame rows in which each tooth position and/or orientation in each key-frame row stage is a key frame, such that each second stage that is not a key-frame row is between a pair of key- frame rows including a first key-frame row that is the nearest key-frame row before the second stage and a second key-frame row that is the nearest key-frame row after the second stage, { (33) As discussed above, for patients that do not require complex tooth movement coordination between multiple teeth or for teeth needing relatively simple correction, the program is configured to utilize an “all-equal” pattern in staging a set of aligners to correct the teeth. In accordance with one exemplary embodiment of the invention, the “all-equal” pattern provides that all of a patient's teeth move in parallel with one another. In other words, all of the patient's teeth that need to move begin moving at the same stage, and finish moving at the same stage. (34) In one embodiment, the program is configured to "stagger", "round trip" and/or slow the movement (each of which is discussed below, respectively) of one or more teeth if the patient's teeth cannot be moved without colliding with and/or obstructing another tooth/teeth. Based on that assessment, the program determines the most efficient path to take through some combination of patterns and accommodation of movement thereof; (35) the "all-equal" pattern provides that all of a patient's teeth move in parallel with one another. In other words, all of the patient's teeth that need to move begin moving at the same stage, and finish moving at the same stage; (36) Since each tooth begins and ends at the same stage, and the distance each tooth needs to travel may differ, the rate at which each tooth will move will generally vary; see also Fig 3. Stages 0 and 8; (38) FIG. 3 is a diagram representing one example of an "all-equal" pattern 300 for moving the teeth of a patient in accordance with one exemplary embodiment of the invention. Column 310 depicts the number of stages for this particular treatment (i.e., stage 0 through stage 8), wherein stage 0 represents the patient's current teeth positioning, and stage 8 represents the final teeth positioning; Fig. 3 } minimum space interpreted as when teeth can not be moved without colliding; Key frame rows interpreted as stages 0 and 8 in Fig.3, which are non-consecutive; each second frame in between is not a key frame. First keyframe row is row 0, 1 -7 second stage. Note that while in 0-8 is only “one example”, and in principle what is now in stage 0 can start in a later stage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from GOR, on determining a treatment plan including performing the stage determination to avoid teeth collisions and using key-frame rows as ‘waypoints” to help the stage solver determine intermediate positions for alignment with further teaching from KIT on moving position one or a second key-frame row and moving the position/orientation of teeth during iterations. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow an intermediate stage between key-frames to allow for movements below a distance, if movements between frames would have required a larger (velocity) move. GOR and KIT methods are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOR in view of KIT.
GOR, KIT does not disclose, however AKO discloses
defining, for each second stage between the pair of key-frame rows, a non-linear function that generates the space between each pair of adjacent model teeth in the second stage as a function of the position and/or orientation of each model tooth of the pair of adjacent model teeth in each key-frame row of the pair of key-frame rows, { [0155] FIG. 21 illustrates the use of a non-linear constrained optimization method to generate a treatment plan. [0318] A special variant of the method is used during construction of orthodontic treatment with a non-linear optimization based algorithm. For example, to compute gradients of change of collision or space amount, every step of a non-linear optimization algorithm may compute values for thousands of small variations of teeth positions. [0276] See, e.g., FIG. 21. To produce treatment plan by solving optimization problem, the treatment plan is described in terms of distinct values, which are mapped to x.sub.j variables in the problem statement. One possible mapping, used in the first implementation of the method, is described below. The position of each tooth at the final stage is described in terms of six coordinates (orientation, e.g., rotation, and translation from the center of the jaw) and mapped to six variables. Staging, i.e. intermediate positions, of each tooth is described as a linear combination of several functional component. Each component describes deviation from linear movement at a certain stage and is parametrized by six coordinate deviations and a stage number. Thus, each functional component is mapped to seven variables in optimization space, per tooth.}
PNG
media_image2.png
364
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
while one or more of the calculated spaces is less than the minimum space, iterating the following sequence one or more times until both of a first linear inequality constraint and a second linear inequality constraint are satisfied by each model tooth in each second stage between the pair of key-frame rows: for each model tooth of each at the at least one key-frame row of the pair of key-frame rows, varying the position and/or orientation of the model tooth from the first an initial position and/or orientation or from a previous position and/or orientation from a previous iteration until the first linear inequality constraint is satisfied by the non-linear function of each second stage between the pair of key-frame rows, varying the position and/or orientation of each the model tooth at the at least one from a present position and/or orientation or from the previous position and/or orientation from the previous iteration until the second linear inequality constraint is satisfied by the non-linear function of each second stage between the pair of key-frame rows, wherein after iterating, the plurality of second stages, in which each calculated space is greater than the minimum space, defines an orthodontic treatment plan in which each second stage corresponds to an aligner for orthodontic treatment of a patient. { AKO [0155] FIG. 21 illustrates the use of a non-linear constrained optimization method to generate a treatment plan. [0318] A special variant of the method is used during construction of orthodontic treatment with a non-linear optimization based algorithm. For example, to compute gradients of change of collision or space amount, every step of a non-linear optimization algorithm may compute values for thousands of small variations of teeth positions. [0276] See, e.g., FIG. 21. To produce treatment plan by solving optimization problem, the treatment plan is described in terms of distinct values, which are mapped to x.sub.j variables in the problem statement. One possible mapping, used in the first implementation of the method, is described below. The position of each tooth at the final stage is described in terms of six coordinates (orientation, e.g., rotation, and translation from the center of the jaw) and mapped to six variables. Staging, i.e. intermediate positions, of each tooth is described as a linear combination of several functional component. Each component describes deviation from linear movement at a certain stage and is parametrized by six coordinate deviations and a stage number. Thus, each functional component is mapped to seven variables in optimization space, per tooth. [0333] Constraints on tooth movements may then be expressed as numeric limits based on the product definition, preferences and comprehensive final position, including at least: the maximum velocity of tooth movement, maximum amount of collision, [0097] combining the plurality of adjusted numerically expressed treatment targets to form a single numerical function; setting a plurality of numeric limits on the single numerical function based on the set treatment preferences; minimizing (e.g., iteratively) the single numerical function subject to the plurality of numeric limits to get a solution vector including all stages forming the treatment plan; and mapping the solution vector to a treatment plan, wherein the treatment plan includes a final tooth position that is
PNG
media_image2.png
364
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
different from the comprehensive final position of the patient's teeth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from GOR/KIT on performing the stage determination to avoid having teeth too close so they collide, and on using key-frames as ‘waypoints” between which make their moves (target positions and orientations) as major steps in the treatment with teaching from AKO on determining the space by a nonlinear function subject to constraints. One would have been motivated to do so to simplify the formulation and allowing efficiently solving of the system of equations which results in the solution movements in position and orientation. Also, to quote from AKO “As mentioned above, there are often situation in which it is desirable to pan a treatment in which the parameters such as the length of treatment are constrained. Further, it would be beneficial to provide methods and apparatuses for treatment planning in which the entire treatment plan (e.g., each stage) is determined at the same time, rather than sequentially. “ As both GOR, KIT and AKO methods are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOR in view of KIT in further view of AKO.
Re claim 17, GOR teaches A computer-implemented method for orthodontic treatment planning with one or more aligners { [Abstract] Systems and methods for generating stages for a treatment plan; [0002] aligners to treat misalignment}
in which an initial staging plan includes a plurality of stages of treatment and indicates one or more collisions between adjacent pairs of model teeth, the method comprising: {[0003] The method further includes generating, by the one or more processors, one or more stages including intermediate 3D representations of the dentition…Generating the one or more stages includes detecting, by the one or more processors, a collision between the first tooth and a second tooth of the plurality of teeth based on the movement vector for the first tooth; see also Fig 16.}
defining a minimum space between adjacent pairs of model teeth; ;{ [0028] …detect or identify a collision between a tooth and two adjacent teeth; See also Fig 16} minimum space is interpreted the space when a collision occurs, essentially 0mm distance/space between teeth.
and while at least one collision exists in the staging plan, iterating: GOR {[0075] The staging processing engine 212 may be configured to iteratively evaluate the projected positions of the teeth at each stage according to movement vectors (initial and corrective) until the staging processing engine 212 does not detect any collisions at any stages.}
wherein after iterating, the plurality of stages, in which each calculated space is greater than the minimum space, defines an orthodontic treatment plan in which each stage corresponds to an aligner for orthodontic treatment of a patient. {[0075] The staging processing engine 212 may be configured to iteratively evaluate the projected positions of the teeth at each stage according to movement vectors (initial and corrective) until the staging processing engine 212 does not detect any collisions at any stages. Following the staging processing engine 212 generating initial and corrective (as needed) movement vectors which do not result in any collisions, the staging processing engine 212 may be configured to transmit, send, or otherwise provide the staged 3D models to the fabrication computing system 106 as described in greater detail above.; Fig 2. (102) treatment planning computing system (212_ Staging Processing Engine, (210) Final position processing engine; Fig 16, Determine number of stages, Generate movement Vector, Collision Detected? NO, Manufacture dental aligners }.
Figures 2, 15 show the orthodontic treatment plan with models corresponding to stages staged modes The fact that each stage in the final staging plan (after collisions eliminated) has one aligner fabricated for it is implicit.
GOR does not teach, however KIT teaches:
creating two or more non-consecutive key-frame rows in the initial staging plan, wherein in the at least one each key-frame row, each tooth position and/or orientation is a key frame, such that each stage that is not a key-frame row is between a pair of key-frame rows including a first key-frame row that is the nearest key-frame row before the stage and a second key-frame row that is the nearest key-frame row after the stage { (33) As discussed above, for patients that do not require complex tooth movement coordination between multiple teeth or for teeth needing relatively simple correction, the program is configured to utilize an “all-equal” pattern in staging a set of aligners to correct the teeth. In accordance with one exemplary embodiment of the invention, the “all-equal” pattern provides that all of a patient's teeth move in parallel with one another. In other words, all of the patient's teeth that need to move begin moving at the same stage, and finish moving at the same stage. (34) In one embodiment, the program is configured to "stagger", "round trip" and/or slow the movement (each of which is discussed below, respectively) of one or more teeth if the patient's teeth cannot be moved without colliding with and/or obstructing another tooth/teeth. Based on that assessment, the program determines the most efficient path to take through some combination of patterns and accommodation of movement thereof; (35) the "all-equal" pattern provides that all of a patient's teeth move in parallel with one another. In other words, all of the patient's teeth that need to move begin moving at the same stage, and finish moving at the same stage; (36) Since each tooth begins and ends at the same stage, and the distance each tooth needs to travel may differ, the rate at which each tooth will move will generally vary; see also Fig 3. Stages 0 and 8; (38) FIG. 3 is a diagram representing one example of an "all-equal" pattern 300 for moving the teeth of a patient in accordance with one exemplary embodiment of the invention. Column 310 depicts the number of stages for this particular treatment (i.e., stage 0 through stage 8), wherein stage 0 represents the patient's current teeth positioning, and stage 8 represents the final teeth positioning; Fig. 3 } minimum space interpreted as when teeth can not be moved without colliding; Key frame rows interpreted as stages 0 and 8 in Fig.3, which are non-consecutive; each second frame in between is not a key frame. First keyframe row is row 0, 1 -7 second stage. Note that while in 0-8 is only “one example”, and in principle what is now in stage 0 can start in a later stage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from GOR, on determining a treatment plan including performing the stage determination to avoid teeth collisions and using key-frame rows as ‘waypoints” to help the stage solver determine intermediate positions for alignment with further teaching from KIT on moving position one or a second key-frame row and moving the position/orientation of teeth during iterations. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow an intermediate stage between key-frames to allow for movements below a distance, if movements between frames would have required a larger (velocity) move. GOR and KIT methods are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOR in view of KIT.
GOR, KIT does not disclose however AKO discloses”
creating, for each stage between the pair of key-frame rows, a non-linear function that generates a space between each pair of adjacent model teeth in the stage as a function of the position and/or orientation of each model tooth of the pair of adjacent model teeth in each key- frame row of the pair of key-frame rows
{ [0155] FIG. 21 illustrates the use of a non-linear constrained optimization method to generate a treatment plan. [0318] A special variant of the method is used during construction of orthodontic treatment with a non-linear optimization based algorithm. For example, to compute gradients of change of collision or space amount, every step of a non-linear optimization algorithm may compute values for thousands of small variations of teeth positions. [0276] See, e.g., FIG. 21. To produce treatment plan by solving optimization problem, the treatment plan is described in terms of distinct values, which are mapped to x.sub.j variables in the problem statement. One possible mapping, used in the first implementation of the method, is described below. The position of each tooth at the final stage is described in terms of six coordinates (orientation, e.g., rotation, and translation from the center of the jaw) and mapped to six variables. Staging, i.e. intermediate positions, of each tooth is described as a linear combination of several functional component. Each component describes deviation from linear movement at a certain stage and is parametrized by six coordinate deviations and a stage number. Thus, each functional component is mapped to seven variables in optimization space, per tooth.}
PNG
media_image2.png
364
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
each model tooth of the pair of adjacent model teeth in each key- frame row of the pair of key-frame rows; andwhile at least one collision exists in the staging plan, iterating the following sequence one or more times until both ofa first linear inequality constraint and a second linear inequality constraint are satisfied by each model tooth in each stage between the pair of key-frame rows:for each model tooth of each key-frame row of the pair of key- frame rows, varying the position and/or orientation of the model tooth from an initial position and/or orientation or from a previous position and/or orientation from a previous iteration until the first linear inequality constraint is satisfied by the non-linear function of each stage between the pair of key-frame rows; and arying the position and/or orientation of each the model tooth from a present position and/or orientation or from the previous position and/or orientation from the previous iteration until the second linear inequality constraint is satisfied by the non- linear function of each stage between the pair of key-frame rows,wherein after iterating, the plurality of stages, in which each calculated space is greater than the minimum space, defines an orthodontic treatment plan in which each stage corresponds to an aligner for orthodontic treatment of a patient. . { AKO [0155] FIG. 21 illustrates the use of a non-linear constrained optimization method to generate a treatment plan. [0318] A special variant of the method is used during construction of orthodontic treatment with a non-linear optimization based algorithm. For example, to compute gradients of change of collision or space amount, every step of a non-linear optimization algorithm may compute values for thousands of small variations of teeth positions. [0276] See, e.g., FIG. 21. To produce treatment plan by solving optimization problem, the treatment plan is described in terms of distinct values, which are mapped to x.sub.j variables in the problem statement. One possible mapping, used in the first implementation of the method, is described below. The position of each tooth at the final stage is described in terms of six coordinates (orientation, e.g., rotation, and translation from the center of the jaw) and mapped to six variables. Staging, i.e. intermediate positions, of each tooth is described as a linear combination of several functional component. Each component describes deviation from linear movement at a certain stage and is parametrized by six coordinate deviations and a stage number. Thus, each functional component is mapped to seven variables in optimization space, per tooth. [0333] Constraints on tooth movements may then be expressed as numeric limits based on the product definition, preferences and comprehensive final position, including at least: the maximum velocity of tooth movement, maximum amount of collision, [0097] combining the plurality of adjusted numerically expressed treatment targets to form a single numerical function; setting a plurality of numeric limits on the single numerical function based on the set treatment preferences; minimizing (e.g., iteratively) the single numerical function subject to the plurality of numeric limits to get a solution vector including all stages forming the treatment plan; and mapping the solution vector to a treatment plan, wherein the treatment plan includes a final tooth position that is different from the comprehensive final position of the patient's
PNG
media_image2.png
364
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
teeth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from GOR on performing the stage determination to avoid having teeth too close so they collide, with teaching from KIT on using key-frames as ‘waypoints” between which make their moves (target positions and orientations) as major steps in the treatment One would have been motivated to do so to simplify the formulation – and hence solving of the system of equations with constraints that result in the solution movements in position and orientation. As both GOR and KIT methods are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOR in view of KIT.
Re claim 2, representative for claim 18, which has a similar limitation, GOR, KIT, AKO teaches the limitations of the parent claim. GOR further teaches:
manufacturing a series of aligners for the patient with each aligner corresponding to one stage of the plurality of stages. { [0080] At step 1508, the fabrication equipment 218 may manufacture a plurality of dental aligners 220. In some embodiments, the fabrication equipment 218 may manufacture a plurality of aligners configured to move the at least some teeth from the initial position to the final position for each stage of the one or more stages…manufacture the aligners by 3D printing the aligners from the initial, intermediate, and final 3D representations of the dentition.}
Re claim 7, representative for claim 22, which has a similar limitation, GOR, KIT, AKO teaches the limitations of the parent claim. GOR further teaches
wherein the minimum space is in a range of 0.0 mm to 0.04 mm.
GOR {[0068] Referring now to FIG. 12 and FIG. 13A through FIG. 13B, the staging processing engine 212 may be configured to determine or generate corrective movement vectors to avoid the collision between the colliding teeth.} Avoid collision is interpreted avoiding touch, which is when min space is larger than 0. https://ptc-dental.com/dictionary/index.php
*The Ness Visual Dictionary of Dental Technology Definition In a CAD/CAM program, contact between opposing or adjacent teeth.
Re claim 9 GOR, KIT, AKO teaches the limitations of the parent claim. GOR further teaches
wherein the position and/or orientation of each model tooth at each second stage of the plurality of second stages is defined in at least two degrees of freedom. {Fig 17 see table row 4, 1.1mm, 9.9o }
Re claim 10, representative for claim 24, which has a similar limitation, GOR, KIT, AKO teaches the limitations of the parent claim. GOR further teaches:
wherein the position and/or orientation of each model tooth is described as a vector with at least two components. { [0060]The movement vectors may include a direction component and a magnitude component (or a direction and a magnitude)} In BRI and in view of the specification [0019] position and/or orientation is in fact characterized by a vector representing a motion of tooth at a stage.
Re claim 11 GOR, KIT, AKO teaches the limitations of the parent claim. GOR teaches:
wherein the vector is:
PNG
media_image3.png
26
162
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where Xt,1 is the position and/or orientation of model tooth i at stage j in which i = 1, N where N is a total number of model teeth in the patient's arch, j = 1, K where K is the number of stage s j in the plurality of second stages and is related to a number of stages j of the plurality of first stages, a is buccal/lingual motion of tooth i at stage j, and p is mesial/distal motion of tooth i at stage j. {See Figs 17- 20} Portion of Fig 2 below with a zoom in, showing values for example for alpha(46, 1) beta (45, 1) teeth 46, 46 stage 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
141
868
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
154
299
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Buccal/lingual motion is interpreted as first number in the table cell, and mesial/distal motion as the second number in the table cell, see also figure 6 in https://www.dentalcare.com/en-us/ce-courses/ce500/surfaces-of-the-teeth
Re claim 16 GOR, KIT, AKO teaches the limitations of the parent claim. GOR further teaches:
defining a deviation constraint for a total movement of each model tooth from the first position and/or orientation; {[0058] The staging processing engine 212 may be configured to determine or identify a maximum movement distance. In some embodiments, the staging processing engine 212 may be configured to identify a maximum movement distance for a respective tooth WOO of the plurality of teeth WOO from the initial position to the final position}
while one or more of the calculated spaces is less than the minimum space, {{ [0028] After each step or stage, the systems and methods described herein may iteratively determine if any collisions are detected and, if so, generate new movement vectors until the stage is collision free} while one or more of the calculated spaces is less than the minimum space is interpreted while collisions are detected}.
calculating the total movement of each model tooth from the respective first position and/or orientation; and when the calculated total movement is greater than the deviation constraint, {[0058] The staging processing engine 212 may be configured to compare the movement distances determined for each tooth WOO to identify the maximum movement distance….The staging processing engine 212 may be configured to use the maximum movement distance to determine a number of stages}
for each model tooth in at least one key-frame row, varying the position and/or orientation of the model tooth from the first position and/or orientation or from a previous position and/or orientation from a previous iteration. {[0060 As such, for each stage in which a tooth 1000 is moved, the movement vector across the stages may generally follow the path 1002 of the tooth 1000; [0061] In some embodiments, teeth 1000 which are to be moved from an initial position to a final position may be moved at each stage of the treatment plan.}
Re claim 3, GOR, KIT, AKO teaches the limitations of the parent claim. KIT further teaches:
wherein iterating further includes varying a position of at least one key-frame row of the pair of key-frame rows. {(24) For example, at a determined position of the revised treatment plan a number of additional stages can be inserted into the revised treatment plan.} varying a position of at least one key-frame in the plurality of stages is varied if one inserts an additional stage (iteration interpreted as revised (a minimum of one iteration). For example if a key-frame was stage 8, it would become stage 9 is an additional stage is inserted in the treatment plan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from GOR, KIT on determining a treatment plan including performing the stage determination to avoid teeth collisions and using key-frame rows as ‘waypoints” to help the stage solver determine intermediate positions for alignment with further teaching from KIT on moving position of key-frame row. One would have been motivated to do have the advantage of being adaptive as to where to place the ‘waypoints” to accommodate the relative position and orientation of teeth during iterations. As both GOR/KIT/AKO methods are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOR in view of KIT/AKO.
Re claim 4, GOR, KIT, AKO teaches the limitations of the parent claim. KIT further teaches:
wherein varying the position includes moving the at least one key-frame row by one stage earlier or one stage later in the plurality of second stages. {(24) For example, at a determined position of the revised treatment plan a number of additional stages can be inserted into the revised treatment plan; Fig 3} varying a position of at least one key-frame in the plurality of stages is varied if one inserts an additional stage. For example if a key-frame was stage 8, it would become stage 9 , that is one stage later. Fig 3 shows keyframe rows in stage 0 and 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from GOR, KIT, AKO on determining a treatment plan including performing the stage determination to avoid teeth collisions and using key-frame rows as ‘waypoints” to help the stage solver determine intermediate positions for alignment with further teaching from KIT on moving position of key-frame row. One would have been motivated to do have the advantage of being adaptive as to where to place the ‘waypoints” to accommodate the relative position and orientation of teeth during iterations. A local position move of the key-frame row, one stage up earlier or after would be obvious to try to check a local optimum around the determined initial position. GOR and KIT methods are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOR in view of KIT/AKO.
Re claim 19, GOR, KIT, AKO teaches the limitations of the parent claim. KIT further teaches:
wherein iterating includes moving the at least one key-frame row of the pair of key-frame rows by one stage earlier or one stage later from a position in the initial staging plan. {(24) For example, at a determined position of the revised treatment plan a number of additional stages can be inserted into the revised treatment plan.; see also Fig 8} moving at least one key-frame by one stage (earlier or) later is interpreted by one inserts an additional stage in the revised plan (iteration interpreted as revised (a minimum of one iteration). For example if a key-frame was stage 8, it would become stage 9 is an additional stage is inserted in the treatment plan. Fig 3 shows keyframe rows in stage 0 and 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from GOR, KIT, AKO on determining a treatment plan including performing the stage determination to avoid teeth collisions and using key-frame rows as ‘waypoints” to help the stage solver determine intermediate positions for alignment with further teaching from KIT on moving position of key-frame row. One would have been motivated to do have the advantage of being adaptive as to where to place the ‘waypoints” to accommodate the relative position and orientation of teeth during iterations. A local position move of the key-frame row, one stage up earlier or after would be obvious to try to check a local optimum around the determined initial position. GOR and KIT and AKO methods are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOR in view of KIT/AKO.
Re claims 5 and 20 GOR,KIT, AKO teach the limitations of the parent claim. KIT further teaches:
wherein the iterating one or more times includes varying the position and/or orientation of each model tooth at each of the first key-frame row and the second key-frame row. {(24) For example, at a determined position of the revised treatment plan a number of additional stages can be inserted into the revised treatment plan; calculate an angle between a mesial-distal reference line of the first tooth and a mesial-distal reference line of the neighboring tooth at a provided stage of the treatment plan; and in response to an identification that the first tooth overlaps with the neighboring tooth of the target digital dental model, revise the treatment plan to: remove the overlap and align the first tooth and the neighboring tooth in an intermediate position within the treatment plan in which the mesial-distal reference line of the first tooth and the mesial-distal reference line of the neighboring tooth are aligned sufficiently for IPR to be performed on at least one of the first and neighboring tooth, and based on the calculated angle between the mesial-distal reference line of the first tooth and the mesial-distal reference line of the neighboring tooth being within a specified threshold; prescribe IPR on the first tooth and the neighboring tooth in the intermediate position; and recline the first tooth and the neighboring tooth to a revised target position in a revised target digital dental model after IPR prescription; see also Fig 3} varying at least one key-frame row includes a first key-frame row and a second key-frame row is interpreted as inserting additional one or more stages before a first keyframe in the example, which would modify (add one or more to the stage number of each key-frame), and wherein iterating one or more times includes varying the position and/or orientation of each model tooth at each of the first key-frame row and the second key-frame row. Iteration is interpreted as revision. Fig 3 shows keyframe rows in stage 0 and 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from GOR, KIT, AKO on determining a treatment plan including performing the stage determination to avoid teeth collisions and using key-frame rows as ‘waypoints” to help the stage solver determine intermediate positions for alignment with further teaching from KIT on moving position one or a second key-frame row and moving the position/orientation of teeth during iterations. One would have been motivated to do so in order to follow an algorithm for solving the a system of equations that results in the solution for tooth movements, and implementing these movements by position cand rotation change. GOR and KIT and AKO methods are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOR in view of KIT/AKO.
Re claim 8, representative for claim 23, which has a similar limitation, GOR, KIT, AKO teach the limitations of the parent claim. AKO further teaches:
defining a maximum space, and wherein iterating occurs while one or more calculated spaces is less than the minimum space or is more than the maximum space. [0333] Constraints on tooth movements may then be expressed as numeric limits based on the product definition, preferences and comprehensive final position, including at least: the maximum velocity of tooth movement, maximum amount of collision, tooth movement limitations, staging constrains, and maximum amount of occlusion. As discussed above, other constraints may include: the maximum velocity of tooth movement, maximum amount of collision and space; [0040] In any of these methods and systems, the collision detector may be repeatedly (including iteratively) invoked.; [0013] In any of the methods and apparatuses described herein, minimizing the single numerical function subject to the plurality of numeric limits to get a solution vector including all stages forming the treatment plan may include estimating collisions between adjacent teeth. Thus, any of these apparatuses may include a collision detector, and particular a collision detector that determines the magnitude and/or velocity of collisions (or separation, which is negative collision) between teeth } maximum space as maximum amount of space. Iterating occurs while one or more calculated spaces is less than the minimum space interpreted as iterating as long as there are collision (min space zero).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from GOR, KIT, AKO on determining a treatment plan including performing the stage determination to avoid teeth collisions and using key-frame rows as ‘waypoints” to help the stage solver determine intermediate positions for alignment with AKO further teachings on acting depending on limits. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid the teeth coming too close (min space) or to avoid and address large gaps between teeth. GOR, KIT, AKO methods are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOR in view of KIT/AKO .
Re claim 15 GOR, KIT, AKO teach the limitations of the parent claim. AKO further teaches:
Wherein one of the first linear inequality constraint or the second linear inequality constraint is a maximum movement velocity, and the method further comprises: defining a maximum movement velocity of each model tooth between any two consecutive stages and while one or more of the calculated spaces is less than the minimum space, calculating a movement velocity between each consecutive stage for each model tooth, and when the calculated movement velocity is greater than the maximum movement velocity, for each model tooth in at least one key-frame row, varying the position and/or orientation of the model tooth from the first position and/or orientation or from a previous position and/or orientation from a previous iteration. { [0093] In any of the methods and systems of generating treatment plans described herein, the treatment plan solver may generate the different sets of tooth positions while minimizing a numerical function subject to a plurality of numerical limits to get a solution vector including all stages of the one or more orthodontic treatment plans.[0061] modifying the position and/or orientation of the teeth in the final (or any intermediate) stage of the treatment plan. [0093] The plurality of numeric limits may comprise one or more of: a maximum velocity of tooth movement, a maximum amount of collision between teeth, a tooth movement limitation; Figs 2C, block 258, Fig 2D blocks 276 278, 280, 282 }
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from GOR, KIT, AKO on determining a treatment plan including performing the stage determination to avoid teeth collisions with the further teaching of AKO which refers to respecting maximal velocity / moves between stages. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid putting too much pressure on the teeth beyond the maximal determined move in each stage, which could lead to pain/discomfort and potential tooth damage. GOR, KIT and AKO methods are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOR in view of KIT/AKO .
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorbovskoy WO-2023085967-A1, (“GOR”), in view of Kitching US 9326830 B2, (“KIT”) in further view of Akopov et al US-20190175303-A1 (“AKO”). ”) in further view of Miller, Chishti et al WO 0180765 A1 (“CHI”) .
Re claim 12 GOR, KIT does not teach, however CHI teaches:
wherein the first key-frame row is represented by (Tp) and a second key-frame row is represented by (Tp+1) and the calculated space (Sij) between adjacent pairs of model teeth (i and i+1) at stage j is represented by:
PNG
media_image6.png
23
356
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in which thecalculated space (Sij) is a function F at stage j of Xt,,, which is the position and/or orientation of model tooth i at the first key-frame row, Xt,p+, which is the position and/or orientation of model tooth i at the second key-frame row, Xti1,p, which is the position and/or orientation of model tooth i+1 at the first key-frame row, and X1i1,p+, which is the position and/or orientation of model tooth i+1 at the second key-frame row. {The user may also specify "key frames" by selecting an intermediate state and making changes to component position(s). In some embodiments, unless instructed otherwise, the software automatically linearly interpolates between all user-specified positions (including the initial position, all key frame positions, and the target position). For example, if only a final position is defined for a particular component, each subsequent stage after the initial stage will simply show the component an equal linear distance and rotation (specified by a quaternion) closer to the final position. If the user specifies two key frames for that component, the component will "move" linearly from the initial position through different stages to the position defined by the first key frame. It will then move, possibly in a different direction, linearly to the position defined by the second key frame.}
In BRI the claim simply recites that the space between two adj teeth at stage (j) depends (is a function of) the position of the same teeth at the first key frame row and a second key frame row. Chishti teaches that the position between two teeth at all stages between an key frames for specific teeth depends from the position of tooth in first frame and position in the second frame. The distance can be calculated from the position of the teeth j and j+1. The simplest case is a linear interpolation. The fact that the space between the two adjacent teeth depends on the position of the two teeth is inherent, since the relative position between two teeth inherently defines the space between them.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from GOR, KIT, AKO on determining a treatment plan including performing the stage determination to avoid teeth collisions and using key-frame rows as ‘waypoints” to help the stage solver determine intermediate positions for alignment with CHI’s teachings on formulating the space between teeth as a function of the determining initial and final position of the teeth which allows calculation of position at any stage in between and hence of space. One would have been motivated in order to formalize the relationship for computer implementation. GOR, KIT, AKO and CHI methods are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOR in view of KIT/AKO/CHI .
Re claim 14 GOR, KIT, AKO, CHI teach the limitations of the parent claim. AKO further teaches:
wherein the minimum space is defined as zero and further including defining a maximum space between adjacent pairs of model teeth according to an inequality:
PNG
media_image7.png
65
343
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where Smax is the maximum space between adjacent teeth i and i+1. {[0013] magnitude and/or velocity of collisions (or separation, which is negative collision) between teeth ; [0093] The plurality of numeric limits may comprise one or more of: a maximum velocity of tooth movement, a maximum amount of collision between teeth,[0315] When using the solver/engine to solve for one or more treatment plan, the solver may avoid collisions between teeth.} Minimum space zero interpreted as avoiding collisions (space larger than zero), space was defined as negative collision. A maximum space interpreted as the maximum amount of collision. A maximum space allowed being between zero and maximum space allowed for a tooth is implicit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from GOR, KIT/AKO/CHI on determining a treatment plan including performing the stage determination to avoid teeth collisions and using key-frame rows as ‘waypoints” to help the stage solver determine intermediate positions for alignment and teachings on formulating the space as a function of the determining initial and final position of the teeth which allows calculation of position at any stage in between and hence of space with AKO’s teaching of the space being larger than zero (collision) and a max value. One would have been motivated in order to formalize the relationship for computer implementation, specifying that at any point the distance between tooth and adjacent one is below the max distance between them over all stages while avoiding collision. GOR, KIT, AKO, CHI methods are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since their elements would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over GOR in view of KIT/AKO/CHI .
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP 2008140364 A LIP SYNC ANIMATION CREATION DEVICE, COMPUTER PROGRAM, AND FACE MODEL CREATION SYSTEM
US 20200306011 A1 PREDICTION OF MULTIPLE TREATMENT SETTINGS
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188