DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the claims filed on February 27, 2026. Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are under examination.
FIG. 1 is objected to.
Claims 2-3, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are allowable over the art.
Response To Amendments/Arguments
Objections to Drawings - The Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. As discussed in the interview, the Applicant’s specification, as filed, clearly treats FIG. 1 as prior art. Also, as discussed in the interview, the original specification cannot be modified by amendment. As demonstrated in this and the prior action, the objection states that the subject matter of FIG. 1 is described in the Applicant’s specification as prior art and that, per MPEP 608.02(g), FIG. 1 MUST be labeled as prior art or canceled. Again, this is clear from the Applicant’s specification paragraph [0006], as previously described, whether or not it was the Applicant’s intention. And, again, his cannot be overcome by attempting to remove the reference from the background. Accordingly, the objection is maintained.
35 USC 112(a) Rejections – The Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
35 USC 112(b) Rejections – The Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered and are persuasive with respect to all except the rejection of claims 2 (and its respective dependent claims) and claim 14. This rejection is maintained, but the other rejections are withdrawn.
35 USC 101 rejections: The Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
35 USC 102 – The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered and are persuasive. The art rejections have been withdrawn.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The Applicant’s specification Background at [0006] states:
Further, a typical force member without multiple (e.g., a plurality of) segments may have a high level of applied force (normalized) drop relative to the displacement (normalized) as shown in FIG. 1. Due to the high level of force vector analysis (e.g., finite element analysis) that comes from force members with multiple segments, existing systems may not be able to utilize multiple segmented force members in their design process or design the force member to maintain a near constant force over a given displacement.
The admission that the force member is a typical, existing force member is an admission that the force member is in use by the general public at the time of filing, and is, therefore, prior art. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) Indefiniteness
Claims 2-3, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
First-Fourth Force Vectors
Claims 2 and 14 provide third and fourth force vectors at the same places and times as the first and second force vectors respectively. It is unclear what the difference is between the third and fourth force vectors and the first and second force vectors, respectively. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the real meaning of the claims.
Dependent claims that depend from rejected claims are rejected for at least the same reasons as the rejected claims.
Claims Allowable Over Art
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are allowed over the prior art.
Independent claim 13 recites (with the other independent claims reciting similar features):
determining, by the computing device and using the digital 3D model and data from the virtual articulation, a first force vector at the selected point associated with one of the at least two brackets, in a first position on the virtual dentition based on the first aggregate force characteristic of the force member in the first configuration;
determining, by the computing device and using the digital 3D model and data from the virtual articulation, a second force vector at the selected point in a second position on the virtual dentition based on the first aggregate force characteristic of the force member in the first configuration, the second position corresponding to a tooth position resulting from a tooth movement after the treatment plan;
determining, by the computing device, whether a condition is satisfied, the condition being that a magnitude of the second force vector at 50 percent displacement between the first position and the second position is within 90 percent of a magnitude of the first force vector at the 50 percent displacement between the first position and the second position;
perform an operation based on whether the condition is satisfied,
The Morton reference (US 2019/0175304 A1) of record teaches:
A system, comprising:
a computing device comprising:
a processor;
and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the computing device to:
receive patient scan data including a digital three-dimensional (3D) model of a virtual dentition of an oral cavity of a patient;
[…]
receive […] data indicative of a first aggregate force characteristic of a force member, of an orthodontic appliance, in a first configuration, the orthodontic appliance including at least to brackets each fixed at a selected point on a corresponding tooth of the virtual dentition, the force member extending between and being mechanically coupled to each bracket of the at least two brackets, a span being defined between the at least two brackets, wherein the force member is elasticity deformable
[…]
determine, using the digital 3D model […], a first force vector at the selected point associated with one of the at least two brackets, in a first position on the virtual dentition based on the first aggregate force characteristic of the force member in the first configuration;
determine, using the digital 3D model and […], a second force vector at the selected point in a second position on the virtual dentition based on the first aggregate force characteristic of the force member in the first configuration, the second position corresponding to a tooth position resulting from a tooth movement after the treatment plan;
[…]
perform an operation […], the operation comprising at least one of:
modify a length or the force characteristics of one or more segments of the force member;
generate a graphical user interface displaying the tooth position and force vectors, indicating whether the condition is satisfied; or
adjust the treatment plan.
An updated search yielded several results that teach using virtual articulation as a tool to determine forces exerted by the brackets and archwire on the dentition, the references including the Kakdiya (NPL: “Recent Advancements in Diagnostic Aids in Orthodontics - A Review”), Maestre-Ferrin (NPL: “Virtual articulator for the analysis of dental occlusion: An update”), Teertesh (NPL: “Virtual Articulator: A Review Of Functioning And Designing”), Somasundurum (US 2022/0257341 A1), Alvarez (US 2022/0246270 A1), Navarro (US 2020/0368000 A1), Ryakhovsky (US 2020/0268495 A1), Fisker (US 2019/0290408 A1), Ignacio (US 2019/0125574 A1), Stipek (US 2018/0110603 A1), Getto (US 2014/0188448 A1), See (US 2013/0325431 A1), which teach:
perform virtual articulation on the digital 3D model to simulate how teeth of the patient interact in different states of a treatment plan;
determine dynamic collision metrics based on the virtual articulation;
receive, based on the dynamic collision metrics, data indicative of a first aggregate force characteristic of a force member, of an orthodontic appliance, in a first configuration, the orthodontic appliance including at least to brackets each fixed at a selected point on a corresponding tooth of the virtual dentition, the force member extending between and being mechanically coupled to each bracket of the at least two brackets, a span being defined between the at least two brackets,
[…]
determine, using the digital 3D model and data from the virtual articulation, a first force vector at the selected point associated with one of the at least two brackets, in a first position on the virtual dentition based on the first aggregate force characteristic of the force member in the first configuration;
determine, using the digital 3D model and data from the virtual articulation, a second force vector at the selected point in a second position on the virtual dentition based on the first aggregate force characteristic of the force member in the first configuration, the second position corresponding to a tooth position resulting from a tooth movement after the treatment plan;
A further updated search yielded several results that teach using archwires with varying properties over the archwire (segments that connect at ends between brackets) to accomplish customize force exertion at different positions, the references including the Braun (NPL: “Variable modulus orthodontics advanced through an auxiliary archwire attachment.”), Cleary (US 6,120,289 A), Sachdeva (US 5,683,245 A), Wildman (US 5,295,886 A), Miura (US 5,017,133 A), Voudouris (US 2021/0401547 A1), Tong (US 2018/0221113 A1), Wool (US 2018/0185120 A1), Raby (US 2017/0367792 A1), Viecilli (US 2016/0287354 A1), Fasci (US 2016/0278883A1), Cantarella (US 2008/0268398 A1), Hilliard (US 2007/0154859 A1), which teach:
a first segment having a first end and a first force characteristic, the first segment being positioned in the span, and
a second segment having a first end and a second force characteristic, the second segment being positioned in the span, wherein the first end of the first segment is attached to the first end of the second segment;
wherein the force member, when secured by the at least two brackets and deformed by displacement of the teeth, applies a force vector to each bracket, a magnitude and direction of the force vector at each bracket being determined by material properties, dimensions, and configuration of the first and second segments, and a spatial arrangement of the brackets on the virtual dentition;
As noted in the objection to the FIG. 1, FIG. 1 is admitted prior art. FIG. 1 illustrates distances of movement of a tooth, after movement of have of the distances which the system presented maintains 90% of its original force.
PNG
media_image1.png
623
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the prior art in the instant application teaches:a magnitude of the second force vector at 50 percent displacement between the first position and the second position is within 90 percent of a magnitude of the first force vector at the 50 percent displacement between the first position and the second position;
However, the references fail to teach that the system determine whether a condition that a magnitude of the second force vector at 50 percent displacement between the first position and the second position is within 90 percent of a magnitude of the first force vector at the 50 percent displacement between the first position and the second position, based on virtual articulation modeling and using a variable force member (archwire) that varies between brackets, and then perform an action based on the specific determination. The combination of these specific elements cannot be taught by the combination of the cited references without the use of impermissible hindsight. A further search was conducted and no combination of references that teach the features of the independent claims was found without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Therefore, claims 1-18 and 20-21, as drafted are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. While all of claims 1-18 and 20-21 are allowed over the art, claims 2-3, 7, and 14 remain rejected based on the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure.
(From Prior Actions)
Applicant’s Background, [0006], and FIG. 1 (Described as “typical” prior art, disclosing that with a target displacement of 0.4, the force at half the desired displacement of 0.2 is still greater than 90% of the force applied initially prior to any displacement).
PNG
media_image1.png
623
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
US 2020/0214598 A1 to Li et al. (Teaches most elements of the claims including use of historical data if available in designing future aligners)
US 11,497,586 B2 to Kopelman (Teaches designing segmented aligners)
US 11,259,896 B2 to Matov et al. (Teaches determining and manufacturing designs for aligners)
US 2013/0204583 A1 to Matov et al. (Teaches determining and manufacturing designs for aligners)
US 2016/0067013 A1 to Morton et al. (MORTON2) (Teaches determining and manufacturing designs for aligners)
US 11,534,271 B2 to Nikolskiy et al. (Teaches determining and manufacturing designs for orthodontia)
US 11,534,974 B2 to O’Leary et al. (Teaches determining and manufacturing designs for orthodontia)
US 2017/0367792 A1 to Raby et al. (Teaches determining and manufacturing designs for orthodontia)
US 6,736,638 B1 to Sachdeva et al. (Teaches determining and manufacturing designs for orthodontia)
US 11,419,702 B2 to Sato et al. (Teaches determining and manufacturing designs for orthodontia)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00-7:00 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (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.
/J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights