DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the claims filed on August 5, 2022.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
Claim 4 is objected to for minor formalities.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 over Morton and Huang.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on August 5, 2022, September 29, 2022, January 13, 2023, March 16, 2023, May 8, 2023, September 29, 2023, December 13, 2023, and March 28, 2024 were filed prior to this action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “[…] is capable of receive force […].” This is a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Subject Matter Eligibility
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-15 are directed to processes. Claims 16-20 are directed to machines.
Independent Claims
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claims -----1, 12, and 16 recite a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites
A method comprising:
[…]
Determining […] a factor of engagement for each of the plurality of tooth faces based on a degree of normality of each tooth face with respect to a direction of a movement for the at least one tooth; (Mental Evaluation, Mental Process – The determination of engagement factors for tooth faces based on the orientation and direction of motion of the teeth is an evaluation practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. Orthodontists performed these analyses long before relying on software for assistance.)
Determining […] an addressable area of the at least one tooth based on the factors of engagement of the plurality of tooth faces, wherein the addressable area comprises at least one of the plurality of tooth faces, wherein the factor of engagement for each tooth face in the at least one of the plurality of tooth faces satisfies a threshold; (Mental Evaluation, Mental Process – The determination of whether engagement factors for tooth faces based on the orientation and direction of motion of the teeth satisfy criteria/thresholds is an evaluation practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. Orthodontists performed these analyses long before relying on software for assistance.)
Identifying […] an area of engagement of the at least one tooth, wherein the area of engagement comprises at least a portion of the addressable area, the portion comprising at least one tooth face accessible by a dental appliance to apply a force to the at least one tooth to effectuate the movement; (Mental Evaluation, Mental Process – The identification of where to have an aligner apply pressure on a tooth to apply a force is an evaluation practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. Orthodontists performed these analyses long before relying on software for assistance.)
Claim 1 recites mental processes and, hence, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), an abstract idea.
Claims 12 and 16
Claim 16 recites,
identify an area of engagement of at least one tooth represented in a digital model of a dentition for applying a first force to move the at least one tooth according to a first movement as part of a treatment plan or a second force to move the at least one tooth according to a second movement as part of the treatment plan, wherein the treatment plan is configured to move the at least one tooth from an initial position to a final position, and wherein the area of engagement comprises a portion of the at least one tooth that is capable of engaging with a dental aligner to be manufactured to apply the first force or the second force to the at least one tooth via the area of engagement to move the at least one tooth; (Mental Evaluation, Mental Process – The identification of where to have an aligner apply pressure on a tooth to apply a force based on available force and engagement knowledge is an evaluation practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. Orthodontists performed these analyses long before relying on software for assistance.)
determine a first controllability score for the first movement and a second controllability score for the second movement based on the area of engagement, the first force associated with the first movement, and the second force associated with the second movement; and (Mental Evaluation, Mental Process – Quantifying a quality of controllability of a particular treatment plan based on the orientation and direction of motion of the teeth is an evaluation practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. Orthodontists performed these analyses long before relying on software for assistance.)
select the first movement for the treatment plan based on the first controllability score and the second controllability score. (Mental Evaluation, Mental Process – Determining a treatment plan based on how well you can control tooth movement is an evaluation practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. Orthodontists performed these analyses long before relying on software for assistance.)
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the operations that the system of claim 16 is configured to perform and recites an abstract idea for at least the same reasons
Claims 1, 12, and 16 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claims fail to recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites the following additional limitations:
receiving […] a digital model of a dentition, the digital model comprising at least one tooth comprising a plurality of tooth faces;
The receiving step is mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity similar to the MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log” “vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display.” The receiving step is insignificant extra-solution activity, and, under MPEP 2106.05(g), fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
[…], by the one or more processors, […]
These are generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality, which, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Also, the real-world quantities the data represents, if any, merely limit the abstract idea to a field of technology and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 fails to recite any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites the following additional limitations:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
These are generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality, which, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Also, the real-world quantities the data represents, if any, merely limit the abstract idea to a field of technology and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites the following additional limitations:
[…], by the one or more processors, […]
These are generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality, which, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Also, the real-world quantities the data represents, if any, merely limit the abstract idea to a field of technology and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 1, 12, and 16 fail to recite any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims fail to recite additional limitations that combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites the following additional limitations:
receiving […] a digital model of a dentition, the digital model comprising at least one tooth comprising a plurality of tooth faces;
The receiving step is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity similar to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” “v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document” “i. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means” The receiving step is WURC and, as previously demonstrated, insignificant extra-solution activity, and, under MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g), fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
[…], by the one or more processors, […]
These are generic computing elements recited at a high level and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B. Should it be found otherwise, these limitations merely limit the abstract idea top a particular technological field and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Also, the real-world quantities the data represents, if any, merely limit the abstract idea to a field of technology and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites the following additional limitations:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
These are generic computing elements recited at a high level and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B. Should it be found otherwise, these limitations merely limit the abstract idea top a particular technological field and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Also, the real-world quantities the data represents, if any, merely limit the abstract idea to a field of technology and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites the following additional limitations:
[…], by the one or more processors, […]
These are generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality, which, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B. Should it be found otherwise, these limitations merely limit the abstract idea top a particular technological field and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Also, the real-world quantities the data represents, if any, merely limit the abstract idea to a field of technology and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Claims 1, 12, and 16 fail to provide additional limitations that combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims:
The dependent claims are also ineligible for the following reasons. Note: The hardware of the system, memory, and one or more processors have already been addressed in the independent claims as failing to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f), and will not be further addressed with respect to the dependent claims. Also, claims identifying what data represents merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological field and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to confer eligibility.
Claim 2
further comprising selecting the movement for a treatment plan configured to move the at least one tooth from an initial position to a final position based on the controllability score.
The selection of movement in a treatment plan based on available data is a mental evaluation, a mental process, abstract idea that is practically performable in the mind or with aid of a pen, paper, and/or calculator. This limitation merges with the abstract idea of the independent claim.
Claim 2 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3
Determining […] a face normalized unit vector for each of the plurality of tooth faces; determining, by the one or more processors, a movement normalized unit vector for each of the plurality of tooth faces; and determining, by the one or more processors, a relative angle between the face normalized unit vector and the movement normalized unit vector for each tooth face.
These determinations are all ones that an orthodontist considers when creating or adjusting a treatment plan. They are evaluations practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator. Therefore, there are mental processes, abstract ideas that merge with the abstract idea of the independent claim.
Claim 3 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4
wherein the addressable area is an actual addressable area,
This merely qualifies what the data represents and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular area of technology, which, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to confer eligibility.
and determining the actual addressable area comprises: (This is addressed in the independent claim)
determining […] a total addressable area, wherein the total addressable area comprises a first subset of the plurality of tooth faces of the at least one tooth, wherein the factors of engagement of the first subset of the plurality of tooth faces satisfy the threshold;
Determining an area on the tooth available for potential engagement is an evaluation practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper, so it is a mental process, an abstract idea that merges with the abstract idea of the independent claim.
Identifying […] an obstruction that prevents at least one of the plurality of tooth faces of the first subset from being able to receive the force; and
Determining an obstruction along a planned path of movement is an evaluation practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper, so it is a mental process, an abstract idea that merges with the abstract idea of the independent claim.
Determining […] the actual addressable area, wherein the actual addressable area comprises the at least one tooth face, wherein the at least one tooth face is capable of receive the force despite the obstruction.
Determining where to apply force by an aligner in response to an obstruction is an evaluation practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper, so it is a mental process, an abstract idea that merges with the abstract idea of the independent claim.
Claim 4 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5
wherein outputting the controllability score comprises: (This output itself was addressed in the independent claim.)
determining […] an available force vector for the at least one tooth face within the area of engagement; determining […] an available moment vector for the at least one tooth face within the area of engagement; and
These determinations are evaluations practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator, so they are mental processes, abstract ideas.
summing, by the one or more processors, the available force vectors and the available moment vectors.
Summing is an evaluation that is practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator, so it is a mental process, and abstract idea. Further, summing is a mathematical operation, a mathematical calculation, an abstract idea.)
Claim 5 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6
wherein the controllability score is a first controllability score, the method further comprising:
This describes the data in the claim and merely limits the claim to a particular technological environment and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B
receiving […] a model dental appliance;
This receiving step is mere data gathering and fails to confer eligibility for at least the same reason as the receiving step of claim 1.
adjusting […] the area of engagement by modifying a geometry of the model dental appliance; and
Modifying the geometry of a model is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
determining […] a second controllability score for the at least one tooth based on the adjusted area of engagement, wherein the second controllability score is greater than the first controllability score.
Determining a controllability score based on an adjusted area of engagement is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
Claim 6 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7
Receiving […] the digital model of the dentition, the digital model comprising a plurality of teeth;
This receiving step is mere data gathering and fails to confer eligibility for at least the same reason as the receiving step of claim 1.
Identifying […] the area of engagement for each of the plurality of teeth; and
Identifying an area of engagement of an aligner to a tooth is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
Determining […] a dentition controllability score based on the area of engagement for each of the plurality of teeth.
Determining a controllability score based on an adjusted area of engagement is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
Claim 7 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8
receiving, by the one or more processors, the digital model of the dentition, the digital model comprising a plurality of teeth;
This receiving step is mere data gathering and fails to confer eligibility for at least the same reason as the receiving step of claim 1.
determining, by the one or more processors, a movement for at least one tooth of the plurality of teeth;
Determining a movement of a tooth within a treatment plan is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
outputting, by the one or more processors, a first controllability score based on the movement of the at least one tooth;
This outputting step fails to confer eligibility for the same reasons as the output step of claim 1.
determining, by the one or more processors, an alternative movement for the at least one tooth;
Determining an alternative movement of a tooth within a treatment plan is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
outputting, by the one or more processors, a second controllability score based on the alternative movement for the at least one tooth.
This outputting step fails to confer eligibility for the same reasons as the prior outputting step of this claim and the outputting step of claim 1.
Claim 8 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9
comparing, by the one or more processors, the first controllability score and the second controllability score; and
A comparison of two scores is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
generating, by the one or more processors, a step of the treatment plan based on the comparison of the first controllability score and the second controllability score.
Determining or modifying a step of a treatment plan based on whether one number is higher than another is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
Claim 9 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10
determining, by the one or more processors, a plurality of movements for the at least one tooth based on the treatment plan, wherein each of the plurality of movements corresponds with a step of the treatment plan;
Determining movements of a tooth within a treatment plan is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
determining, by the one or more processors, a treatment plan controllability score based on the plurality of movements for the at least one tooth.
Determining a controllability score based on movements of a tooth within a determined treatment plan is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
Claim 10 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 11
further comprising determining a pushing force configured to move the at least one tooth from a first position to a second position.
Determining a pushing force on a tooth within a determined treatment plan is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
Claim 11 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claim 11 is ineligible.
Claims 13 and 17
wherein the first movement is selected for the treatment plan based on the first controllability score exceeding the second controllability score.
Selecting a first movement within a determined treatment plan based on a score exceeding another score is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
Claims 13 and 17 fail to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claims 13 and 17 are ineligible.
Claims 14 and 18
determining, by the one or more processors, a third controllability score for a third movement subsequent to the first movement; and
Determining a controllability score for a tooth movement within a determined treatment plan is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
determining, by the one or more processors, a fourth controllability score for a fourth movement subsequent to the second movement;
Determining a controllability score for a tooth movement after another movement (e.g., a sequence of movements) within a determined treatment plan is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
wherein the first movement is selected for the treatment plan based on a summation of the first controllability score and the third controllability score exceeding a summation of the second controllability score and the fourth controllability score.
Selecting a treatment plan based on a first sum of scores exceeding a second sum of scores is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea. Also, the summations themselves are mathematical calculations, mathematical operations, abstract ideas.
Claims 14 and 18 fail to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claims 14 and 18 are ineligible.
Claims 15 and 20
wherein the at least one tooth is a first tooth, and wherein the first movement is selected for the treatment plan based on a controllability score of a movement selected to be applied to a second tooth represented in the digital model of the dentition.
Selecting a movement for a tooth based on the controllability of a movement to be applied to a second tooth is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
Claims 15 and 20 fail to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claims 15 and 20 are ineligible.
Claim 19
wherein the second controllability score exceeds the first controllability score.
The determination that one score exceeds another score is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator, so this is a mental evaluation, an abstract idea.
Should it be found otherwise, this is a description of the data that merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claim 19 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2.
Claim 19 is ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-20: Morton and Huang
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190314117 A1 to Morton et al. (Morton) in view of US 20210315669 A1 to Huang et al. (Huang).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Morton Teaches:
A method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, a digital model of a dentition, the digital model comprising at least one tooth comprising a plurality of tooth faces; (Morton Abstract “Orthodontic systems and related methods are disclosed for designing and providing improved or more effective tooth moving systems for eliciting a desired tooth movement and/or repositioning teeth into a desired arrangement. Methods and orthodontic systems of the invention include tooth attachments having improved or optimized parameters selected or modified for more optimal and/or effective application of forces for a desired/selected orthodontic movement.” – An orthodontic method. [0168] “The data processing aspects of the invention can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations of them. Data processing apparatus of the invention can be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor; and data processing method steps of the invention can be performed by a programmable processor executing a program of instructions to perform functions of the invention by operating on input data and generating output. The data processing aspects of the invention can be implemented advantageously in one or more computer programs that are executable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor coupled to receive data and instructions from and to transmit data and instructions to a data storage system, at least one input device, and at least one output device.” – Processor and memory are used to conduct the computations. [0008] “The method includes receiving a digital model of the patient's tooth.” [0064] “FIG. 2C illustrates an attachment optimization process, according to an embodiment of the present invention. The process includes providing or creating a treatment or force application simulation environment. A simulation environment can include, e.g., computer modeling systems, biomechanical systems or apparatus, and the like. One or more aligner shapes or candidate attachment designs can be selected for testing or force modeling. As noted above, a desired tooth movement, as well as a force system required or desired for eliciting the desired tooth movement can be identified. Using the simulation environment, a candidate attachment shape(s) can be analyzed or modeled for determination of an actual force system resulting from use of the candidate attachment. One or more modifications can optionally be made to a candidate attachment, and force modeling can be further analyzed as described.” [0067] “The result of the determination is a desired force system to be applied to the tooth. An initial attachment geometry can be assumed and described by a group of parameters. The force system produced by this initial geometry may then be determined by computer modeling or measured directly. The force system may be defined with respect to a reference point, such as an axis of the tooth or any dental characteristic. The tooth morphology and surface orientation may be taken into account when determining the attachment design. The surface of the tooth may have an orientation such that when a generic attachment shape is bonded to the surface of the tooth, the force is not correctly directed.” – The computer models the environment, including the dentition. This includes the faces of the teeth of the dentition.)
determining, by the one or more processors, a factor of engagement for each of the plurality of tooth faces based on a degree of normality of each tooth face with respect to a direction of a movement for the at least one tooth; determining, by the one or more processors, an addressable area of the at least one tooth based on the factors of engagement of the plurality of tooth faces, wherein the addressable area comprises at least one of the plurality of tooth faces, wherein the factor of engagement for each tooth face in the at least one of the plurality of tooth faces satisfies a threshold; (Morton [0067] “The surface of the tooth may have an orientation such that when a generic attachment shape is bonded to the surface of the tooth, the force is not correctly directed. The surface orientation(s) of the parametric attachment is then altered to compensate for the tooth surface orientation and the force is redirected in a more favorable direction. Location of the attachment on the tooth may be altered as well to determine the position which produces the optimal force system. Orientation such as rotation around an axis or linear movement may be altered as well to optimize the force system. Each parameter of consequence in determining the force system produced by the attachment may then be incremented within clinically relevant values and the optimal design identified.” [0121] “Furthermore, in yet still another aspect, attachment design and/or placement may be determined based on the location of the maximum amount of surface area available perpendicular to the desired direction of the tooth movement. Further, if the force on any given tooth in the treatment plan is at or below a predefined level, the attachment(s) may be added to the tooth or appliance to supplement the desired surface area or increase the friction coefficient of the tooth, thereby improving the force profile of the aligner on the tooth.” – Based on the relative angle of movement v. the normal to a tooth surface, the system determines potential locations for the attachments. If the engagement is deemed insufficient (does not meet a threshold), it is modified until the engagement is sufficient (threshold is met). This can also be applied to the ranges of force and angle rotation limits that are applied, which themselves are thresholds. Also See [0063]-[0067], [0071]-[0074], [0119]-[0129], and [0160]-[0170] – These paragraphs describe the various factors accounted for including tooth morphology, attachment location, attachment orientation, and probability of engagement between the teeth and the aligner. The movement direction is defined which establishes the direction of the applied force, as well as the level of force and its properties that reposition teeth from initial positions to target positions. Optimized rotation and angle of clipping plane are also described.).
identifying, by the one or more processors, an area of engagement of the at least one tooth, wherein the area of engagement comprises at least a portion of the addressable area, the portion comprising at least one tooth face accessible by a dental appliance to apply a force to the at least one tooth to effectuate the movement; (Morton [0066] “In one embodiment, an attachment may be identified as having a force or torque value falling outside the identified range, and generating an optimized attachment can include modifying one or more parameter values of the attachment so as to bring the force or torque value of the attachment within the identified range. In another embodiment, a method may include identification of an attachment with a force/torque falling within the desired range, followed by modification of parameter value(s) accomplished such that the force/torque of the modified or optimized attachment fall within a different portion of the desired range. For example, an attachment may be identified as having force/torque values in a lower portion of a desired range, with modifications selected to optimized the attachment so as to provide force/torque values higher within the desired range. See, e.g., FIG. 2D, Shape F compared to Shape F′ and F″.” [0067] “Location of the attachment on the tooth may be altered as well to determine the position which produces the optimal force system. Orientation such as rotation around an axis or linear movement may be altered as well to optimize the force system. Each parameter of consequence in determining the force system produced by the attachment may then be incremented within clinically relevant values and the optimal design identified.” [0121] “Furthermore, in yet still another aspect, attachment design and/or placement may be determined based on the location of the maximum amount of surface area available perpendicular to the desired direction of the tooth movement. Further, if the force on any given tooth in the treatment plan is at or below a predefined level, the attachment(s) may be added to the tooth or appliance to supplement the desired surface area or increase the friction coefficient of the tooth, thereby improving the force profile of the aligner on the tooth.” [0123] “Moreover, in further regard to the discussion herein regarding attachment design and customization, angulation or the attachment as well as the surface configuration of the attachments may be selected or provided to improve upon the movement vector to optimize its application to the desired tooth while minimizing the amount of undesirable or unwanted force vectors, e.g., that may be counteracting upon the movement vector. Additionally, in one aspect, a plurality of attachments, e.g., a series of abutting attachments may be provided to alter the force direction or generate the movement vector which is carried over for a predetermined time period, such that, the series of abutting attachments may be configured to function as slow motion cams where the dental appliance then functions as a follower.” – The system searches for the best location on the surface of the tooth for attachment engagement in order to optimize the application to the desired tooth for the treatment plan.)
outputting, by the one or more processors, a [design adjustment] for the at least one tooth based on the area of engagement.
Morton teaches an inference engine 456 to process input data and a set of rules 452a-452n in a rule base of rules to define a production system which, when applied to the input data, produces a set of output conclusions that specify the adjustments to the aligner in the relevant region of the tooth. Morton does not appear to explicitly teach, but Morton in view of Huang teaches:
outputting, by the one or more processors, a controllability score for the at least one tooth based on the area of engagement. (Huang Abstract “A orthodontic suite and its manufacturing method for multistage treating malocclusion or abnormal alignment of the teeth and jaws are suggest. The orthodontic suite has a first stage and a second orthodontic appliances, in which the first orthodontic appliance includes a first stage arch, first stage anchoring troughs and first stage adapting troughs disposed on the first stage arch. The second orthodontic appliance includes a second stage arch, second stage anchoring troughs and second stage adapting troughs disposed on the second stage arch. The positions of second stage anchoring troughs are identical to the first stage anchoring troughs, and the positions of the second stage adapting troughs are shifting or rotating based on the first stage adapting troughs.” – This describes a system for generating higher accuracy/better corrections which improve controllability. (Huang [0053] “Therefore patient's dentition 97 may eventually meet Class I occlusion relationship of Angle's Classification, as well as move the upper and lower jaws to Centric Relation (CR), and thus improve the stability of patient's occlusion. Please noted that, the position of Centric Occlusion (CO) is the position where the upper teeth and lower teeth bite in the closest-fit condition, namely the upper teeth and lower teeth bite to meet the largest occlusal surface. Furthermore, the Centric Relation (CR) is the mandibular jaw position in which the head of the condyle is situated as far anterior and superior as it possibly can within the mandibular glenoid fossa, where CR is the most stable situation to all teeth. Normally, the most prefect situation is that the position of CO has 0.5 mm to 1 mm displacement away from the position of CR. The present invention of orthodontic suite may adjust and correct the jaws in multi stages, thus the patient who suffers malocclusion of Class II or Class III occlusion relationship of Angle's Classification can have orthodontic treatment, and then make the patient's first molars 93 be gradually moved and rotated to meet Class I occlusion relationship of Angle's Classification; in which the first stage anchoring troughs C17 and second stage anchoring troughs C27 are designated and set to meet Class I occlusion relationship of Angle's Classification. Therefore upper jaw and lower jaw correction through the present invention of orthodontic suite may have the first molars 93 moved and guided to be anchored at position to meet Class I occlusion relationship, and keep the upper jaw and lower jaw in the Centric Relation for the sake of dental health.” – The use numeric metrics for Class I occlusion relationship of Angle’s Classification and the move of the upper and lower jaws to centric relations, each of which can is a quantitative controllability score, for the teeth and respective areas of engagement. As indicated, the most perfect situation is that the position of CO has 0.5 mm to 1 mm displacement away from the position of CR. Similarly, the metrics for Cass II and Class III occlusion relationship of Angle’s Classification can have orthodontic treatment, which can make the patient’s first molars be gradually moved (controllability) and rotated to meet the Class I occlusion relationship of Angle’s Classification.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to modify Morton’s aligner development by Huang’s orthodontic considerations, as the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to by Morton’s express aim to precisely control the moments applied to the teeth to improve effectiveness of treatment and clinical results with precise applied forces customized to a particular patient, to look to Huang whose methods improve adaptability of the orthodontic suite of Morton, better customizing the treatment to make it more suitable for people of all ages and expanding the clinical predictability and commercial advantages. (Morton [0005]-[0006] “Current tooth attachments used for rotation have the same shape and position for all patients and teeth undergoing movement with a rotation component. Due to the individual morphology of teeth and composite movements, the performance of such attachments may not be optimal for all patients. Accordingly, improved techniques and orthodontic systems are needed for designing and providing more effective tooth movement forces to the teeth during orthodontic treatment using tooth attachments, and reducing unwanted tooth movements.” [0053] “As further described herein, tooth attachments can be designed, oriented, and/or located on a patient's tooth to precisely control the moments produced on a patient's tooth as the appliance is worn by the patient. Customized design and use in orthodontic treatment as described herein can advantageously improve effectiveness of treatment and clinical results by more precisely applying force vectors of necessary magnitude and direction for desired movement. Orthodontic systems of the present invention including appliances and tooth attachments as described further provide an efficient force distribution mechanism that can more effectively reduce unwanted force and moment.”; Huang Abstract “A orthodontic suite and its manufacturing method for multistage treating malocclusion or abnormal alignment of the teeth and jaws are suggest. The orthodontic suite has a first stage and a second orthodontic appliances, in which the first orthodontic appliance includes a first stage arch, first stage anchoring troughs and first stage adapting troughs disposed on the first stage arch. The second orthodontic appliance includes a second stage arch, second stage anchoring troughs and second stage adapting troughs disposed on the second stage arch. The positions of second stage anchoring troughs are identical to the first stage anchoring troughs, and the positions of the second stage adapting troughs are shifting or rotating based on the first stage adapting troughs.” [0057] “Moreover, the orthodontic suite of present invention does not use metal archwire of traditional means to correct teeth, so that the issues of positioning or controllability of movement or orientation for teeth are eventually reduced, and thus higher accuracy of correcting azimuth and movement are achievable. Therefore orthodontics including teeth alignment, jaws correction, teeth reshape, reposition, and occlusion arrangement, etc., are able to treated through the present invention, and patient can have tooth brushing and cleaning with ease and convenience as usual during the orthodontic suite is utilized. So adaptability of the orthodontic suite of present invention to all ages including adults and kids is made, thus it may have huge clinic practicability and commercial advantages.”)
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Morton in view of Huang teaches the features of claim 1 and further teach:
further comprising selecting the movement for a treatment plan configured to move the at least one tooth from an initial position to a final position based on the controllability score. (Huang [0053] “Therefore patient's dentition 97 may eventually meet Class I occlusion relationship of Angle's Classification, as well as move the upper and lower jaws to Centric Relation (CR), and thus improve the stability of patient's occlusion. Please noted that, the position of Centric Occlusion (CO) is the position where the upper teeth and lower teeth bite in the closest-fit condition, namely the upper teeth and lower teeth bite to meet the largest occlusal surface. Furthermore, the Centric Relation (CR) is the mandibular jaw position in which the head of the condyle is situated as far anterior and superior as it possibly can within the mandibular glenoid fossa, where CR is the most stable situation to all teeth. Normally, the most prefect situation is that the position of CO has 0.5 mm to 1 mm displacement away from the position of CR. The present invention of orthodontic suite may adjust and correct the jaws in multi stages, thus the patient who suffers malocclusion of Class II or Class III occlusion relationship of Angle's Classification can have orthodontic treatment, and then make the patient's first molars 93 be gradually moved and rotated to meet Class I occlusion relationship of Angle's Classification; in which the first stage anchoring troughs C17 and second stage anchoring troughs C27 are designated and set to meet Class I occlusion relationship of Angle's Classification. Therefore upper jaw and lower jaw correction through the present invention of orthodontic suite may have the first molars 93 moved and guided to be anchored at position to meet Class I occlusion relationship, and keep the upper jaw and lower jaw in the Centric Relation for the sake of dental health.” – Huang adjusts the treatment plan movements to make the position of C) have .5 mm to 1 mm displacement away from the position of CR. The other aforementioned controllability scores are also adjusted by these movements to get to an acceptable range for the patient.)
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Morton in view of Huang teaches the features of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein determining the factor of engagement for each of the plurality of tooth faces comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, a face normalized unit vector for each of the plurality of tooth faces; determining, by the one or more processors, a movement normalized unit vector for each of the plurality of tooth faces; and determining, by the one or more processors, a relative angle between the face normalized unit vector and the movement normalized unit vector for each tooth face. (Morton [0005] “Appliances, in general, apply force and/or torque on a tooth crown to move teeth, with the applied force typically normal with respect to the surface of a tooth or attachment positioned on the tooth. ” [0007]-[0013] “Methods and orthodontic systems of the invention include tooth attachments having improved or optimized parameters selected or modified for more optimal and/or effective application of forces for a desired/selected orthodontic movement. […] A desired force system for eliciting the selected tooth movement is determined. A patient-customized attachment is then designed. The attachment is configured to engage an orthodontic appliance when worn by a patient and apply a repositioning force to a tooth corresponding to the selected force system. The attachment includes one or more parameters having values selected based on the digital model, the selected force system, and one or more patient-specific characteristics, thereby providing improved application of the selected force system to the patient's tooth. […] The method includes determining a desired force system to be applied to the patient's tooth so as to elicit the selected tooth