DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are pending and examined herein.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Priority
Claims 1-15 are granted the claim to the benefit of priority to U.S. application 13/365117 filed 02 February 2012. Thus, the effective filling date of claims 1-15 is 02 February 2012.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was received on 08 November 2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received 03 August 2022 are objected to for the reasons set out below.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “560” in Fig. 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “creating a physical feature based on the virtual testing to cause the at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth”, claim 5 recites “creating a physical feature based on the virtual testing to cause the at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth”, and claim 11 recites “creating the physical feature based on the virtue testing having the second shape in response to the tooth being in a position within the threshold proximity to the desired position”. The BRI of creating the physical feature encompasses virtually creating an attachment, appliance structure, aligner (see instant disclosure [0058]).
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
(Step 1)
Claims 1-4 fall under the statutory category of a process and claims 5-15 fall under the statutory category of a machine.
(Step 2A Prong 1)
Under the BRI, the instant claims recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mental process”, such as procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, and forming judgement or an opinion. The instant claims further recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mathematical concept”, such as mathematical relationships and mathematical equations.
Claim 1 recites mental processes of “determining at least one of a desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth by an aligner such that the tooth moves…”, “determining a placement area on the tooth for a dental attachment to achieve at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth in response to interaction…”, “determining an attachment location in the placement area on tooth…”, “testing and adjusting the attachment location in the placement area iteratively to reach the at least one of the desired force and torque to reach a desired attachment location of the dental attachment to move the tooth from…” and “creating a physical feature based on the testing to cause the at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth”.
Claim 5 recites mental processes of “determine at least one of a desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth by an aligner…”, “determine a placement area on the tooth for a dental attachment to achieve at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied…”, “determine an attachment location in the placement area on the tooth…”, “testing and adjusting the attachment location in the placement area iteratively to reach the at least one of the desired force and torque to reach a desired attachment location…”, and “creating a physical feature based on the testing to cause the at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth”.
Claim 11 recites mental processes of “determine at least one of a desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth to reach the desired position…”, “create a physical feature having a first shape and an initial position that interacts with the aligner…”, “determine a placement area for the physical feature on the tooth included in the IOD…”, “testing and adjusting the physical feature, including: adjusting the physical feature by adjusting at least one of the initial position to a revised position and adjusting the first shape of the physical feature to a second shape in response to the tooth being in a position outside a threshold proximity to the desired position”, “determining at least one of an estimated actual force and torque generated by the physical feature having the second shape in the placement area”, and “creating the physical feature based on the testing having the second shape in response to the tooth being in a position within the threshold proximity to the desired position”.
Dependent claim 2 recites a mental process of “determining a force to cause the tooth to move once bone breakdown of the tooth has occurred”. Dependent claim 3 recites a mental process of “determining the placement area on the tooth based on a center of mass of the tooth associated with the at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth”. Dependent claim 4 recites a mental process of “determining the placement area on the tooth based on a center of resistance of the tooth associated with the at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth”.
The claims recite mental processes of analyzing and evaluating dental information for designing dental appliances. The human mind is capable of performing analysis on dental data and using design criteria to produce a design for a dental appliance. Dependent claims 9, 14, 15 further limit the mental process/mathematical concept recited in the independent claim but do not change their nature as a mental process/mathematical concept.
(Step 2A Prong 2)
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). Integration into a practical application is evaluated by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
The additional element in claim 1 of using a generic computer to perform judicial exceptions, the additional element in claim 5 of a computing device including a processor and a memory where the processor is configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, the additional element in claim 11 of a non-transitory computing device readable medium having executable instructions executed by a processor to cause a computing device do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because this is applying the judicial exception to a generic computer without an improvement to computer technology. These additional elements of the generic computer (or a non-transitory computing device readable medium) only interact with the judicial exceptions in a manner where the generic computer is used as a tool to perform the judicial exceptions.
The additional element in claim 1 of receiving a desired position of the tooth included in initial orthodontic data (IOD), wherein the IOD includes tooth data of the patient, the additional element in claim 5 of an imaging device to scan a patient's dentition to generate initial orthodontic data (IOD), wherein the IOD includes tooth data of the patient, the additional element in claim 5 of receive, from the imaging device, the IOD, the additional element in claim 5 of receive a desired position of the tooth included in the IOD, the additional element in claim 8 of wherein the imaging device is an intra-oral scanner, the additional element in claim 11 of receive a desired position of a tooth of a patient included in initial orthodontic data (IOD), wherein the IOD includes tooth data of the patient do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because this adding insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. These additional elements only interact with the judicial exceptions in manner by providing data to be processed by the judicial exceptions.
The additional element in claims 7, 10, 12, and 13 of a display that displays dental data such as positions of a tooth and forces that provide movement to the tooth do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because this adding insignificant extra solution activity of outputting data. The additional element of the display for displaying dental data only interacts with the judicial exceptions by providing an output of the judicial exceptions which process initial dental data. It is noted that the content of the data does not change the active step of displaying on a display and the content of the data falls under the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and claims 1-15 are directed to the abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
The additional element in claim 1 of using a generic computer to perform judicial exceptions, the additional element in claim 5 of a computing device including a processor and a memory where the processor is configured to execute instructions stored in the memory, the additional element in claim 11 of a non-transitory computing device readable medium having executable instructions executed by a processor to cause a computing device are conventional as shown by MPEP 2106.05(b) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional element in claim 1 of receiving a desired position of the tooth included in initial orthodontic data (IOD), wherein the IOD includes tooth data of the patient, the additional element in claim 5 of receive a desired position of the tooth included in the IOD, the additional element in claim 11 of receive a desired position of a tooth of a patient included in initial orthodontic data (IOD), wherein the IOD includes tooth data of the patient are conventional as shown by MPEP 2106.05(b) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). It is noted that the content of the data does not change the active step of receiving data in a computer environment and the content of the data falls under the abstract idea.
The additional element in claim 5 of an imaging device to scan a patient's dentition to generate initial orthodontic data (IOD), the additional element in claim 5 of receive, from the imaging device, the IOD, and the additional element in claim 8 of wherein the imaging device is an intra-oral scanner are conventional as shown by Wen et al. (US 20100009308 A1), Knopp (US 20100092907 A1), and Morton et al. (US 20100138025 A1) which all show imagining devices with Wen et al. and Knopp showing the imaging device being an intraoral scanner.
The additional element in claims 7, 10, 12, and 13 of a display that displays dental data such as positions of a tooth and forces that provide movement to the tooth is conventional as shown by MPEP 2106.05(b) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). It is noted that the content of the data does not change the active step of displaying on a display and the content of the data falls under the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are conventional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Morton et al. (US 20100138025 A1).
Claim 1 is directed to a computing device implemented method of virtually testing force placed on a tooth of a patient, comprising: receiving a desired position of the tooth included in initial orthodontic data (IOD), wherein the IOD includes tooth data of the patient
Morton et al. shows receiving a desired final position of the teeth along with a digital data set that represents the initial arrangement of the teeth and other tissues of a patient (Morton et al. [0079]-[0082]).
determining at least one of a desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth by an aligner such that the tooth moves from an initial position to the desired position
Morton et al. shows determining an orthodontically optimal amount of force to be applied to the tooth that will move the teeth on a defined treatment path from an initial position to the desired position ([0082]-[0085]).
determining a placement area on the tooth for a dental attachment to achieve at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth in response to interaction between the aligner and the dental attachment, determining an attachment location in the placement area on the tooth for the dental attachment;
Morton et al. shows a providing a patient specific attachment and for positioning the attachment on a tooth of a patient by determining constraints for positioning the attachment and then determining a current position for the attachment such that the attachment is positioned inside the constrained boundary (Morton et al. [0148]-[0149]).
virtually testing and virtually adjusting the attachment location in the placement area iteratively to reach the at least one of the desired force and torque to reach a desired attachment location of the dental attachment to move the tooth from the initial position to the desired position
Morton et al. shows an iterative process of adjusting attachment location in the constrained boundary to reach a solution where the attachment that will result in the desired movement of the tooth (Morton et al. [0148]-[0153]). Morton et al. shows a movement vector that establishes the direction of the applied force as well as the level of force and the properties which are necessary to reposition the tooth from the initial position to the target position (Morton et al. [0119]).
and creating a physical feature based on the virtual testing to cause the at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth
Morton et al. shows when the attachment provides a solution that will result in the desired movement of the tooth, the solution is applied to the treatment of the patient where the solution is the attachment that provides the desired movement of the tooth (Morton et al. [0153]).
Claim 3 is directed to wherein determining the placement area on the tooth includes determining the placement area on the tooth based on a center of mass of the tooth associated with the at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth.
Morton et al. shows parameters of an active attachment surface such as the mass center of the clipping plane associated with the tooth and desired force (Morton et al. [0160] and Fig. 27).
Claim 4 is directed to wherein determining the placement area on the tooth includes determining the placement area on the tooth based on a center of resistance of the tooth associated with the at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth.
Morton et al. an attachment is controlled by several parameters so that the shape of the attachment and the position of the attachment on a tooth are patient specific and provide optimal force and torque (Morton et al. [0131]). Morton et al. shows that the torque is calculated with respect to a center of resistance of the tooth (Morton et al. [0132]).
Claim 5 is directed to a system for virtually testing force placed on a tooth, comprising: an imaging device to scan a patient's dentition to generate initial orthodontic data (IOD), wherein the IOD includes tooth data of the patient
Morton et al. shows imaging a patients dentition to generate a digital data set that represents the initial arrangement of the teeth and other tissues of a patient (Morton et al. [0079]-[0080]).
a computing device including a processor and a memory, the processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to: receive, from the imaging device, the IOD, receive a desired position of the tooth included in the IOD
Morton et al. shows receiving a desired final position of the teeth along with a digital data set that represents the initial arrangement of the teeth and other tissues of a patient (Morton et al. [0079]-[0082]).
determine at least one of a desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth by an aligner such that the tooth moves from an initial position to the desired position
Morton et al. shows determining an orthodontically optimal amount of force to be applied to the tooth that will move the teeth on a defined treatment path from an initial position to the desired position ([0082]-[0085]).
determine a placement area on the tooth for a dental attachment to achieve at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth based on the aligner interacting with the dental attachment, determine an attachment location in the placement area on the tooth for the dental attachment
Morton et al. shows a providing a patient specific attachment and for positioning the attachment on a tooth of a patient by determining constraints for positioning the attachment and then determining a current position for the attachment such that the attachment is positioned inside the constrained boundary (Morton et al. [0148]-[0149]).
virtually testing and virtually adjusting the attachment location in the placement area iteratively to reach the at least one of the desired force and torque to reach a desired attachment location of the dental attachment to move the tooth from the initial position to the desired position
Morton et al. shows an iterative process of adjusting attachment location in the constrained boundary to reach a solution where the attachment that will result in the desired movement of the tooth (Morton et al. [0148]-[0153]). Morton et al. shows a movement vector that establishes the direction of the applied force as well as the level of force and the properties which are necessary to reposition the tooth from the initial position to the target position (Morton et al. [0119]).
and creating a physical feature based on the virtual testing to cause the at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth
Morton et al. shows when the attachment provides a solution that will result in the desired movement of the tooth, the solution is applied to the treatment of the patient where the solution is the attachment that provides the desired movement of the tooth (Morton et al. [0153]).
Claim 6 is directed to wherein the physical feature includes at least one of the aligner and the dental attachment
Morton et al. shows generating optimal designs of physical features of an aligner and attachments as a result of the optimization procedure (Morton et al. [0120]).
Claim 9 is directed to wherein the IOD includes an initial virtual dental model of an initial tooth arrangement of the patient.
Morton et al. shows a digital data set that represents the initial arrangement of the teeth and other tissues of a patient (Morton et al. [0079]-[0080]).
Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computing device readable medium having executable instructions executed by a processor to cause a computing device to: receive a desired position of a tooth of a patient included in initial orthodontic data (IOD), wherein the IOD includes tooth data of the patient
Morton et al. shows receiving a desired final position of the teeth along with a digital data set that represents the initial arrangement of the teeth and other tissues of a patient (Morton et al. [0079]-[0082]).
determine at least one of a desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth to reach the desired position, wherein the at least one of the desired force and torque are applied using a dental attachment by interaction with an aligner, wherein the dental attachment includes a shape;
Morton et al. shows determining an orthodontically optimal amount of force to be applied to the tooth that will move the teeth on a defined treatment path from an initial position to the desired position ([0082]-[0085]).
create a physical feature having a first shape and an initial position that interacts with the aligner to deliver the at least one of the desired force and torque to the tooth
Morton et al. shows a method for providing a patient specific attachment and for positioning the attachment on the tooth of a patients (Morton et al. [0148]). Morton et al. shows a current position for the attachment is then set such that the attachment is positioned inside a constrained boundary (Morton et al. [0149] and Fig. 24).
determine a placement area for the physical feature on the tooth included in the IOD based on a center of resistance of the tooth for virtual testing
Morton et al. shows constraints for positioning the attachment are detected and a current position for the attachment is then set such that the attachment is positioned inside a constrained boundary (Morton et al. [0149], Fig. 24, and Fig. 25). Morton et al. an attachment is controlled by several parameters so that the shape of the attachment and the position of the attachment on a tooth are patient specific and provide optimal force and torque (which is calculated with respect to a center of resistance of the tooth) (Morton et al. [0131] and [0132]).
virtually testing and virtually adjusting the physical feature, including: virtually adjusting the physical feature by virtually adjusting at least one of the initial position to a revised position and adjusting the first shape of the physical feature to a second shape in response to the tooth being in a position outside a threshold proximity to the desired position
Morton et al. shows an iterative process of adjusting attachment location and attachment shape in the constrained boundary to reach a solution where the attachment that will result in the desired movement of the tooth (Morton et al. [0148]-[0153]). Morton et al. shows that when the attachment does not provide the desired movement of the tooth the process iterates and another position of the attachment is tested (also the shape can be modified during the process of the next iteration) (Morton et al. [0153]). Morton et al. shows a movement vector that establishes the direction of the applied force as well as the level of force and the properties which are necessary to reposition the tooth from the initial position to the target position (Morton et al. [0119]).
determining at least one of an estimated actual force and torque generated by the physical feature having the second shape in the placement area
Morton et al. shows determining the estimated actual force may be generated from force measurement sensors and the attachment parameter are altered based at least in part on the feedback from the force gauge and as a result a movement vector is defined which established the direction of the applied force as well as the magnitude/level of the force (Morton et al. [0118]-[0119]).
and creating the physical feature based on the virtual testing having the second shape in response to the tooth being in a position within the threshold proximity to the desired position.
Morton et al. shows when the attachment provides a solution that will result in the desired movement of the tooth, the solution is applied to the treatment of the patient where the solution is the attachment that provides the desired movement of the tooth (Morton et al. [0153]).
Claim 14 is directed to wherein the IOD includes at least one of a gum structure and a mouth bone structure.
Morton et al. shows the initial data includes digital models with surrounding bone and soft tissue (Morton et al. [0080]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morton et al. (US 20100138025 A1) as applied to claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 above, in view of in view of Martin (US 20100092905 A1).
Claim 2 is directed to wherein determining at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth by the aligner includes determining a force to cause the tooth to move once bone breakdown of the tooth has occurred.
Morton et al. does not show wherein determining at least one of the desired force and torque to be applied to the tooth by the aligner includes determining a force to cause the tooth to move once bone breakdown of the tooth has occurred.
Like Morton et al., Martin shows orthodontic appliances useful for transferring corrective forces. Martin et al. shows repositioning of teeth is accomplished by attaching orthodontic forces to the rigid structure of a tooth which provides corrective forces (when maintained continuously) cause a response of bone breakdown (bone resorption) and bone deposition (Martin [0005]). Martin shows that the resorption of bone on one side of the root and the creation of new bone on the other drives tooth movement and that this process is triggered by optimal forces with subliminal and excessive forces will not be necessarily produce desired tooth movement (Martin [0005]-[0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have modified the desired force used for customizing dental appliances of Morton et al. with the optimal force which triggers desired tooth movement based on bone breakdown of Martin because this would provide a method of customizing dental appliances (i.e., aligners and attachments) to elicit an optimal force which moves teeth through the breakdown bone while avoiding subliminal and excessive forces which will not necessarily produce desired tooth movement (Martin [0006]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success because Morton et al. shows customizing dental appliances based on forces applied to a tooth to cause a desired movement from an initial position to a target position while Martin shows dental appliances for optimal forces which lead to bone breakdown and subsequently a desired movement of a tooth.
Claims 7, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morton et al. (US 20100138025 A1) as applied to claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 above, in view of in view of Kuo (US 20100167225 A1).
Claim 7 is directed to a display the tooth, the attachment location in the placement area on the tooth, and the virtual testing and virtual adjusting of the attachment location.
Morton et al. shows an iterative process of adjusting attachment location and attachment shape in the constrained boundary to reach a solution where the attachment that will result in the desired movement of the tooth (Morton et al. [0148]-[0153], Fig. 24, and Fig. 25).
Morton et al. does not explicitly show displaying this information.
Like Morton, Kuo shows modeling teeth of a patient to provide a customized treatment plan. Kuo shows the digital representation of the patient's initial teeth parameters is loaded into a software program and the chosen treatment is virtually applied to the digital teeth parameters (Kuo [0025] and Figure 8). Kuo further shows the virtual treatment may be a geometric representation of the forces that would be applied by the treatment (Kuo [0025] and Figure 8). Kuo shows the output may a visual representation, a mathematical description, or a combination thereof and a display of the target position and rotation of each individual tooth of the patient (Kuo [0026] and Figure 8).
Claim 10 is directed to a display to display: the initial virtual dental model of the initial tooth arrangement of the patient, a target virtual dental model of a tooth arrangement including the tooth at a desired location; and at least one of a desired force and a desired force movement on the tooth as a vector arrow, wherein the vector arrow shows at least one of a direction and a magnitude of the desired force.
Morton et al. in view of Kuo shows receiving a desired final position of the teeth along with a digital data set that represents the initial arrangement of the teeth and other tissues of a patient (Morton et al. [0079]-[0082]). Morton et al. shows determining an orthodontically optimal amount of force to be applied to the tooth that will move the teeth on a defined treatment path from an initial position to the desired position ([0082]-[0085]). Morton et al. shows a movement vector that establishes the direction of the applied force as well as the level of force and the properties which are necessary to reposition the tooth from the initial position to the target position (Morton et al. [0119]).
Claim 12 is directed to wherein the instructions are executed by the processor to cause the computing device to display, via a user interface: the at least one of the desired force and desired torque via the user interface; and the at least one of the estimated actual force and torque applied to the tooth by the physical feature via the user interface. Claim 13 is directed to display, via a user interface: the at least one of the desired force and torque as first force and torque vector arrows, respectively, showing a first direction and magnitude of the desired force and torque; and the at least one of the estimated actual force and torque as second force and torque vector arrows, respectively, showing a second direction and magnitude of the estimated actual force and torque.
Morton et al. in view of Kuo shows determining the estimated actual force may be generated from force measurement sensors and the attachment parameter are altered based at least in part on the feedback from the force gauge and as a result a movement vector is defined which established the direction of the applied force as well as the magnitude/level of the force (Morton et al. [0118]-[0119]). Morton et al. shows a movement vector that establishes the direction of the applied force as well as the level of force and the properties which are necessary to reposition the tooth from the initial position to the target position (Morton et al. [0119]).
An invention would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art if some motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have combined the process of customizing attachments of an aligner to exert a desired force on a tooth of a patient of Morton et al. with the visual display of treatment simulations of Kuo because this provides a visual output that displays the analysis of attachment parameters that will result in the desired movement of a tooth in terms of mathematical forces which allow for the ability visualize the effect attachment parameters have on a virtual patient tooth (Kuo [0025], [0026], and Figure 8). One would have a reasonable expectation of success because Morton et al. shows an iterative process for creating features of attachments using a virtual dental model of a patient while Kuo shows the ability to display treatment effects on a virtual dental model.
Claims 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morton et al. (US 20100138025 A1) as applied to claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102 above, in view of Knopp (US 20100092907 A1).
Claim 8 is directed to wherein the imaging device is an intra-oral scanner.
Morton et al. does not show the imaging device to be an intra-oral scanner.
Like Morton et al., Knopp shows obtaining initial tooth parameters using an imaging device for virtual modeling of teeth of a patient. Knopp shows obtaining initial tooth parameters through intraoral scanning (Knopp [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have substituted the imaging device of Morton et al. with the intraoral scanning of Knopp because these imagining devices are both used for collecting initial tooth parameters for virtual modeling of teeth for a patient and the use of the intraoral scanner would lead to predictable results of a particular imaging device to capture initial tooth parameters for virtual modeling of teeth.
Claims 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morton et al. (US 20100138025 A1) as applied to claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 above, in view of Cinader et al. (US 20100260405 A1).
Claim 15 is directed to wherein the dental attachment is chosen to perform a particular movement with respect to the tooth positioning in the IOD based on a particular malocclusion of the tooth.
Morton et al. does not show wherein the dental attachment is chosen to perform a particular movement with respect to the tooth positioning in the IOD based on a particular malocclusion of the tooth.
Like Morton et al., Cinader et al. shows virtual modeling teeth of a patient in the context of treatment by repositioning the teeth of the patient. Cinader et al. shows software may also include subprograms to assist in suggesting or selecting the proper appliances for treatment of the particular malocclusion at hand (Cinder et al. [0043]).
An invention would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art if some motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have combined the dental attachment customization of Morton et al. with the subprogram to assist in suggesting or selecting the proper appliances for treatment of the particular malocclusion at hand of Cinader et al. because this would allow for a computer to execute virtual dental attachment design while accounting for particular malocclusions and proper appliances are used for correction (Cinader et al. [0043]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success because Morton et al. shows virtual modeling teeth of a patient for customizing dental appliances while Cinader et al. shows a subprogram for selecting proper dental appliances to be used for particular malocclusions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,417,431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by Patent No. 11,417,431.
Regarding instant claim 1, patent 11,417,431 shows receiving a desired position of a tooth of a patient included in initial orthodontic data (patent claim 1 lines 3-4), determining at least one of a desired force and torque to be applied to the virtual tooth such that the virtual tooth moves from an initial position to the desired position (patent claim 1 lines 5-6), determining a placement area and attachment location in the placement are on the virtual tooth (patent claim 1 lines 7-12), iteratively adjust the attachment location of the virtual dental attachment in the placement area to move the virtual tooth from an initial position to the desired position (patent claim 1 lines 15-19), creating a physical feature as an aligner and a dental attachment shaped in accordance with the virtual aligner and virtual attachment (patent claim 1 lines 20-24).
Regarding instant claim 2, patent 11,417,431 shows determining a force to cause bone breakdown of the tooth (patent claim 2).
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 11-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,417,431 in view of Morton et al. (US 20100138025 A1).
Regarding instant claim 1, the patent 11,417,431 shows these limitations as shown above (patent claim 1 lines 3-24).
The patent 11,417,431 does not show the limitations of instant claim 3 or instant claim 4.
Regarding instant claims 3 and 4, Morton et al. shows parameters of an active attachment surface such as the mass center of the clipping plane associated with the tooth and desired force (Morton et al. [0160] and Fig. 27). Morton et al. an attachment is controlled by several parameters so that the shape of the attachment and the position of the attachment on a tooth are patient specific and provide optimal force and torque (which is based on a center of resistance of the tooth) (Morton et al. [0131] and [0132]).
Regarding instant claim 11, the patent 11,417,431 shows the several limitations of claim 11 (except for the limitations specified below) as shown above (patent claim 1 lines 3-24).
Regarding instant claims 12 and 13, patent 11,417,431 shows a displaying for displaying virtual dental data (claim 1 lines 13-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have displayed data regarding the analysis of dental data when designing dental appliances.
The patent 11,417,431 does not show determining a placement area based on a center of resistance of the tooth or changing the position and size of the attachment for a virtual test, and estimating at least one of actual force or torque in claim 11, wherein the IOD data includes at least one of a gum structure and a mouth bone structure in claim 14.
Regarding instant claim 11, Morton et al. shows Morton et al. an attachment is controlled by several parameters so that the shape of the attachment and the position of the attachment on a tooth are patient specific and provide optimal force and torque (which is based on a center of resistance of the tooth) (Morton et al. [0131] and [0132]), Morton et al. shows changing the position and shape of the attachment during virtual testing (Morton et al. [0148]-[0153], Fig. 24, and Fig. 25), and Morton et al. shows determining the estimated actual force may be generated from force measurement sensors and the attachment parameter are altered based at least in part on the feedback from the force gauge and as a result a movement vector is defined which established the direction of the applied force as well as the magnitude/level of the force (Morton et al. [0118]-[0119]).
Regarding claim instant claim 14, Morton et al. shows Morton et al. shows the initial data includes digital models with surrounding bone and soft tissue (Morton et al. [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the placement area on the tooth of patent 11,417,431 with the mass center of the clipping plane associated with the tooth and desired force and the position of the attachment on a tooth are patient specific and provide optimal force and torque (which is based on a center of resistance of the tooth) because this would allow for a method with certain constraints on the placement area of the attachment during the design of a dental appliance which controls the optimization procedure to avoid solutions which introduce problems in the design (Morton et al. [0154] and Fig. 25). One would have a reasonable expectation of success because both patent 11,417,431 and Morton et al. show virtual design of dental appliances through adjustment of attachments. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified the design of a dental appliance of the patent 11,417,431 with changing the position/shape of the attachment during virtual testing and determining the estimated actual force may be generated from force measurement sensors and the attachment parameter are altered based at least in part on the feedback from the force gauge of Morton et al. because this would allow for an iterative design of a dental appliance to search for different positions and attachment sizes that satisfies a solution for desired teeth movement and utilizing actual force as a feedback in the design leading to virtual solutions that physically relevant (Morton et al. [0118]-[0119], [0148]-[0153], Fig. 24, and Fig. 25). One would have a reasonable expectation of success because both the patent 11,417,431 and Morton et al. provide steps for designing a dental appliance based on patient dental data.
Claims 5-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,417,431 in view of Knopp (US 20100092907 A1).
Regarding instant claim 5, patent 11,417,431 shows receiving a desired position of a tooth of a patient included in initial orthodontic data (patent claim 1 lines 3-4), determining at least one of a desired force and torque to be applied to the virtual tooth such that the virtual tooth moves from an initial position to the desired position (patent claim 1 lines 5-6), determining a placement area and attachment location in the placement are on the virtual tooth (patent claim 1 lines 7-12), iteratively adjust the attachment location of the virtual dental attachment in the placement area to move the virtual tooth from an initial position to the desired position (patent claim 1 lines 15-19), creating a physical feature as an aligner and a dental attachment shaped in accordance with the virtual aligner and virtual attachment (patent claim 1 lines 20-24).
Regarding instant claim 6, patent 11,417,431 shows creating a physical feature as an aligner and a dental attachment shaped in accordance with the virtual aligner and virtual attachment (patent claim 1 lines 20-24).
Regarding instant claims 7 and 10, patent 11,417,431 shows a displaying for displaying virtual dental data (claim 1 lines 13-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have displayed data regarding the analysis of dental data when designing dental appliances.
Regarding instant claim 9, the patent 11,417,431 shows initial orthodontic data and virtual teeth which is interpreted as a virtual model (patent claim 1 lines 3-6).
The patent 11,417,431 does not show an imaging device for collecting data in claim 5 and the imaging device being an intra-oral scanner of claim 8.
Like patent 11,417,431, Knopp shows virtual modeling of dental data. Knopp shows using an imaging device of an intraoral scanner to obtain initial tooth parameters of a patient (Knopp [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have combined the design of a dental appliance implemented on a computer (i.e., virtual) with the use of an intra oral scanner imaging device of Knopp because this would allow for obtaining data directly from a patient of interest to perform virtual modeling on and dental appliance design (Knopp [0034]). One would have a reasonable expectation because both patent 11,417,431 and Knopp show virtual modeling of teeth utilizing dental data.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,417,431 in view of Morton et al. (US 20100138025 A1), further in view of Cinader et al. (US 20100260405 A1).
Regarding instant claim 11, instant claim 11 is unpatentable over the patent 11,417,431 in view of Morton et al. as shown above.
The patent 11,417,431 in view of Morton et al. does not show wherein the dental attachment is chosen to perform a particular movement with respect to the tooth positioning in the IOD based on a particular malocclusion of the tooth in claim 15.
Regarding claim 15, Cinader et al. shows software may also include subprograms to assist in suggesting or selecting the proper appliances for treatment of the particular malocclusion at hand (Cinader et al. [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have combined the dental attachment customization of the patent 11,417,431 in view of Morton et al. with the subprogram to assist in suggesting or selecting the proper appliances for treatment of the particular malocclusion at hand of Cinader et al. because this would allow for a computer to execute virtual dental attachment design while accounting for particular malocclusions and proper appliances are used for correction (Cinader et al. [0043]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success because the patent 11,417,431 in view Morton et al. shows virtual modeling teeth of a patient for customizing dental appliances while Cinader et al. shows a subprogram for selecting proper dental appliances to be used for particular malocclusions.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN EDWARD HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-6165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached at 571-272-2249. 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.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685