DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-4, and 6-21 have been presented for examination.
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Claims 17-21 are newly added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made that this application is a continuation of 15/195,588 filed 06/28/2016 now issued patent 11426259. Application 15/195,588 is a continuation of 13/365,167 filed 02/02/2012 now issued patent 9375300.
Response to Arguments
4. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/3/26 has been entered.
i) Following Applicants amendments, the double patenting rejection is MAINTAINED below. It is noted Applicants made no specific arguments to distinguish the claims.
ii) Following Applicants amendments and arguments the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED. Specifically, the prior art, U.S. Patent No. 6471511, Chishti, teaches the graphical user interface displaying the direction or magnitude of any forces in at least Column 4, Lines 39-49 which recites “Clinician interaction can be implemented using a client process programmed to receive tooth positions and models, as well as path information from a server computer or process in which other steps of process 100 are implemented. The client process is advantageously programmed to allow the clinician to display an animation of the positions and paths and to allow the clinician to reset the final positions of one or more of the teeth and to specify constraints to be applied to the segmented paths. If the clinician makes any such changes, the subprocess of defining segmented paths (step 150) is performed again.” The specific constraints include as per Column 2, Lines 29-34, “The clinical constraints can include a maximum rate of displacement of a tooth, a maximum force on a tooth, and a desired end position of a tooth. The maximum force can be a linear force or a torsional force. The maximum rate of displacement can be a linear or a angular rate of displacement.” Therefore the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
iii) Further the prior art, U.S. Patent No. 6471511, Chishti, teaches the display of representation of virtual tooth shape at the optimized shape or placement in at least the same Column 4, Lines 39-49 which recites “Clinician interaction can be implemented using a client process programmed to receive tooth positions and models, as well as path information from a server computer or process in which other steps of process 100 are implemented. The client process is advantageously programmed to allow the clinician to display an animation of the positions and paths and to allow the clinician to reset the final positions of one or more of the teeth and to specify constraints to be applied to the segmented paths. If the clinician makes any such changes, the subprocess of defining segmented paths (step 150) is performed again.” The specific constraints include as per Column 2, Lines 29-34, “The clinical constraints can include a maximum rate of displacement of a tooth, a maximum force on a tooth, and a desired end position of a tooth. The maximum force can be a linear force or a torsional force. The maximum rate of displacement can be a linear or a angular rate of displacement.” Therefore the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1, 6, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11426259. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claims are found in the parent application as noted above. The table below is an exemplary comparison of representative claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the U.S. Patent. A similar analysis would apply for claims 6 and 12 of the instant application and claim 1 of the U.S. Patent.
Instant Application Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 11426259 Claim 1
generate a treatment plan including a segmented path for virtual teeth from an initial virtual dental model to a target virtual dental model, each segment having a corresponding virtual dental appliance to move the virtual teeth to a subsequent segment, wherein the initial virtual dental model that is based on initial orthodontic data (IOD) of physical teeth;
determining, via the computing device, a target virtual dental model for an initial virtual dental model that is based on initial orthodontic data (IOD) of physical teeth;
generating, via the computing device, a treatment plan including a segmented path for virtual teeth from the initial virtual dental model to the target virtual dental model, each segment having a corresponding virtual dental appliance to move the virtual teeth to a subsequent segment;
adjust, through a graphical user interface, a shape or placement of a virtual tooth surface feature
receiving, via the computing device, an adjustment to a shape or placement of the virtual tooth surface feature to improve the resulting configuration;
display, through the graphical user interface, a visual indication of a direction or magnitude of the force applied to the one or more virtual teeth by the corresponding virtual dental appliance;
virtually identify and test a force applied to one or more of the virtual teeth by the corresponding virtual dental appliance and the virtual teeth by the corresponding virtual dental appliance and the virtual tooth surface feature based on the shape or placement of the virtual tooth surface feature;
displaying, on a graphical user interface, a representation of a force applied to the virtual teeth by the corresponding virtual dental appliance of a particular segment of the treatment plan and a virtual tooth surface feature on one of the virtual teeth, wherein the displayed representation includes one or more of a line, an arrow, and a vector associated with one or more characteristics of the force applied to the virtual teeth;
determine a resulting configuration of the virtual teeth based on the displayed force applied to the one or more virtual teeth;
determining, via the computing device, a resulting configuration of the virtual teeth based on the force applied to the virtual teeth;
repeat the adjusting, the virtual identifying and testing, and the determining steps until the resulting configuration is within a threshold proximity to a desired result to determine an optimized shape or placement of the virtual tooth surface; (Examiner notes the revised force reads on the claimed repeating and the improving the resulting configuration reads on the claimed desired result)
displaying, on the graphical user interface, a representation of a revised force applied to the virtual teeth by the corresponding virtual dental appliance and the virtual tooth surface feature after the adjustment;
determining, via the computing device, a resulting configuration of the virtual teeth based on the revised force applied to the virtual teeth;
receiving, via the computing device, an adjustment to a shape or placement of the virtual tooth surface feature to improve the resulting configuration;
and output, via the graphical user interface, a a representation comprising the virtual teeth with the virtual tooth surface at the optimized shape or placement.
and outputting, via an output interface, an identification of a placement of an actual feature, corresponding to the placement of the virtual tooth surface feature, on an actual tooth, corresponding to the one of the virtual teeth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(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.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
6. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6471511, hereafter Chishti.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A non-transitory computing device readable medium having instructions that can be executed by a processor to:
generate a treatment plan including a segmented path for virtual teeth from an initial virtual dental model to a target virtual dental model, each segment having a corresponding virtual dental appliance to move the virtual teeth to a subsequent segment, wherein the initial virtual dental model that is based on initial orthodontic data (IOD) of physical teeth; (Column 4, Lines 51-65, “(11) The segmented tooth paths and associated tooth position data are used to calculate clinically acceptable appliance configurations (or successive changes in appliance configuration) that will move the teeth on the defined treatment path in the steps specified by the path segments (step 170). Each appliance configuration represents a step along the treatment path for the patient. The steps are defined and calculated so that each discrete position can follow by straight-line tooth movement or simple rotation from the tooth positions achieved by the preceding discrete step and so that the amount of repositioning required at each step involves an orthodontically optimal amount of force on the patient's dentition. As with the path definition step, this appliance calculation step can include interactions and even iterative interactions with the clinician (step 160).”)
adjust, through a graphical user interface, a shape or placement of a virtual tooth surface feature; (Column 7, Lines 9-22, “(21) When all of the teeth have been considered, the aggregate changes made to the aligner are evaluated against previously defined constraints (step 470), examples of which have already been mentioned. Constraints can be defined with reference to a variety of further considerations, such as manufacturability. For example, constraints can be defined to set a maximum or minimum thickness of the aligner material, or to set a maximum or minimum coverage of the aligner over the crowns of the teeth. If the aligner constraints are satisfied, the changes are applied to define a new aligner shape (step 490). Otherwise, the changes to the aligner are revised to satisfy the constraints (step 480), and the revised changes are applied to define the new aligner shape (step 490).”)
virtually identify and test a force applied to the one or more virtual teeth by the corresponding virtual dental appliance and the virtual tooth surface feature based on the shape or placement of the virtual tooth surface feature; (Column 7, Lines 9-22, “(21) When all of the teeth have been considered, the aggregate changes made to the aligner are evaluated against previously defined constraints (step 470), examples of which have already been mentioned. Constraints can be defined with reference to a variety of further considerations, such as manufacturability. For example, constraints can be defined to set a maximum or minimum thickness of the aligner material, or to set a maximum or minimum coverage of the aligner over the crowns of the teeth. If the aligner constraints are satisfied, the changes are applied to define a new aligner shape (step 490). Otherwise, the changes to the aligner are revised to satisfy the constraints (step 480), and the revised changes are applied to define the new aligner shape (step 490).”)
display, through the graphical user interface, a visual indication of a direction or magnitude of the force applied to the one or more virtual teeth by the corresponding virtual dental appliance; (Column 10, Lines 60-64, “The computer system can be programmed to provide a graphical user interface through which computer programs interact with users. The computer system can be programmed to provide a virtual reality, three-dimensional display interface.”)
determine a resulting configuration of the virtual teeth based on the displayed force applied to the one or more virtual teeth; and (Column 6, Lines 18-31, “(17) The model aligner is then computationally manipulated to place it over the modeled teeth in the model jaw to create a composite model of an in-place aligner (step 340). Optionally, the forces required to deform the aligner to fit over the teeth, including any hardware attached to the teeth, are computed and used as a figure of merit in measuring the acceptability of the particular aligner configuration. In a simpler alternative, however, the aligner deformation is modeled by applying enough force to its insides to make it large enough to fit over the teeth, placing the model aligner over the model teeth in the composite model, setting the conditions of the model teeth and tissue to be infinitely rigid, and allowing the model aligner to relax into position over the fixed teeth.”)
repeat the adjusting, the virtual identifying and testing, and the determining steps until the resulting configuration is within a threshold proximity to a desired result to determine an optimized shape or placement of the virtual tooth surface; and (Column 4, Lines 15-18, “The tooth paths are segmented. The segments are calculated so that each tooth's motion within a segment stays within threshold limits of linear and rotational translation.”)
output, via the graphical user interface, representation comprising the virtual teeth with the virtual tooth surface at the optimized shape or placement. (Column 4, Lines 43-49, “The client process is advantageously programmed to allow the clinician to display an animation of the positions and paths and to allow the clinician to reset the final positions of one or more of the teeth and to specify constraints to be applied to the segmented paths. If the clinician makes any such changes, the subprocess of defining segmented paths (step 150) is performed again.”)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The medium of claim 1, the instructions further executable to receive an edit to adjust a shape of the corresponding virtual dental appliance. (Column 2, Lines 21-30, “ The model and resulting appliance can be modified by modifying the shape of the unsatisfactory appliance, by adding a dimple, by adding material to cause an overcorrection of tooth position, by adding a ridge of material to increase stiffness, by adding a rim of material along a gumline to increase stiffness, by removing material to reduce stiffness, or by redefining the shape to be a shape defined by the complement of the difference between the intended effect and the actual effect of the unsatisfactory appliance.”)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The medium of claim 2, the instructions further executable to: virtually identify and test force applied to the one or more virtual teeth by the adjusted virtual dental appliance and virtual tooth surface feature after the adjustment; and determine a new resulting configuration of the one or more virtual teeth based on the virtual identifying and testing for the adjusted virtual dental appliance and adjusted feature. (Column 6, Lines 18-31, “(17) The model aligner is then computationally manipulated to place it over the modeled teeth in the model jaw to create a composite model of an in-place aligner (step 340). Optionally, the forces required to deform the aligner to fit over the teeth, including any hardware attached to the teeth, are computed and used as a figure of merit in measuring the acceptability of the particular aligner configuration. In a simpler alternative, however, the aligner deformation is modeled by applying enough force to its insides to make it large enough to fit over the teeth, placing the model aligner over the model teeth in the composite model, setting the conditions of the model teeth and tissue to be infinitely rigid, and allowing the model aligner to relax into position over the fixed teeth.”)
Regarding Claim 4: The reference discloses The medium of claim 3, the instructions further executable to illustrate the force applied to the one or more teeth by the corresponding virtual dental appliance on the initial virtual dental model and simultaneously illustrate the force applied to the one or more teeth by the dental appliance and virtual tooth surface feature after the adjustment on the initial virtual dental model. (Column 4, Lines 43-49, “ The client process is advantageously programmed to allow the clinician to display an animation of the positions and paths and to allow the clinician to reset the final positions of one or more of the teeth and to specify constraints to be applied to the segmented paths. If the clinician makes any such changes, the subprocess of defining segmented paths (step 150) is performed again.”)
Regarding Claim 6: See rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses The system of claim 6, the instructions further executable to virtually identify and test force applied to the teeth by each corresponding virtual dental appliance and by virtual gingiva and bone interactions. (Column 3, Lines 40-47, “(5) As an initial step, a mold or a scan of patient's teeth or mouth tissue is acquired (110). This step generally involves taking casts of the patient's teeth and gums, and may also involve taking wax bites, direct contact scanning, x-ray imaging, tomographic imaging, sonographic imaging, and other techniques for obtaining information about the position and structure of the teeth, jaws, gums and other orthodontically relevant tissue.” Column 9, Lines 30-35, “and a specification of a model for the jaw bone and other tissues in or on which the teeth are situated (in the implementation being described, this model consists of a model of a viscous substrate fluid in which the teeth are embedded and which has boundary conditions that essentially define a container for the fluid).”)
Regarding Claim 11: The reference discloses The system of claim 6, wherein the graphical user interface displays the force applied to the virtual tooth surface feature by the corresponding dental appliance. (Column 10, Lines 60-64, “The computer system can be programmed to provide a graphical user interface through which computer programs interact with users. The computer system can be programmed to provide a virtual reality, three-dimensional display interface.” Column 1, Lines 59-67, “The invention specifies the appliances so that they apply an acceptable level of force, cause discomfort only within acceptable bounds, and achieve the desired increment of tooth repositioning in an acceptable period of time. The invention can be implemented to interact with other parts of a computational orthodontic system, and in particular to interact with a path definition module that calculates the paths taken by teeth as they are repositioned during treatment.”)
Regarding Claim 12: See rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13: The reference discloses The method of claim 12, further comprising receiving, through the graphical user interface, a modification of a shape of the corresponding virtual dental appliance. (Column 10, Lines 60-64, “The computer system can be programmed to provide a graphical user interface through which computer programs interact with users. The computer system can be programmed to provide a virtual reality, three-dimensional display interface.”)
Regarding Claim 14: The reference discloses The method of claim 13, further comprising: virtually identifying and testing a force applied to the one or more virtual teeth by the shape of the corresponding dental appliance and virtual tooth surface feature after the modification; (Column 4, Lines 51-65, “(11) The segmented tooth paths and associated tooth position data are used to calculate clinically acceptable appliance configurations (or successive changes in appliance configuration) that will move the teeth on the defined treatment path in the steps specified by the path segments (step 170). Each appliance configuration represents a step along the treatment path for the patient. The steps are defined and calculated so that each discrete position can follow by straight-line tooth movement or simple rotation from the tooth positions achieved by the preceding discrete step and so that the amount of repositioning required at each step involves an orthodontically optimal amount of force on the patient's dentition. As with the path definition step, this appliance calculation step can include interactions and even iterative interactions with the clinician (step 160).”) and determining a new resulting configuration of the virtual teeth based on the virtual identifying and testing for the corresponding dental appliance. (Column 6, Lines 18-31, “(17) The model aligner is then computationally manipulated to place it over the modeled teeth in the model jaw to create a composite model of an in-place aligner (step 340). Optionally, the forces required to deform the aligner to fit over the teeth, including any hardware attached to the teeth, are computed and used as a figure of merit in measuring the acceptability of the particular aligner configuration. In a simpler alternative, however, the aligner deformation is modeled by applying enough force to its insides to make it large enough to fit over the teeth, placing the model aligner over the model teeth in the composite model, setting the conditions of the model teeth and tissue to be infinitely rigid, and allowing the model aligner to relax into position over the fixed teeth.”)
Regarding Claim 15: The reference discloses The method of claim 14, further comprising illustrating the force applied to the teeth by the corresponding virtual dental appliance on the initial virtual dental model and simultaneously illustrating the force applied to the teeth by the dental appliance and virtual tooth surface feature after the adjustment on the initial virtual dental model. (Column 10, Lines 60-64, “The computer system can be programmed to provide a graphical user interface through which computer programs interact with users. The computer system can be programmed to provide a virtual reality, three-dimensional display interface.”)
Regarding Claim 16: The reference discloses The method of claim 13, further comprising receiving an edit to one or more of a group of virtual tooth surface features that includes a dimple, a reinforcement structure, a shape, and an orientation with respect to the teeth. (Column 2, Lines 21-29, “The model and resulting appliance can be modified by modifying the shape of the unsatisfactory appliance, by adding a dimple, by adding material to cause an overcorrection of tooth position, by adding a ridge of material to increase stiffness, by adding a rim of material along a gumline to increase stiffness, by removing material to reduce stiffness, or by redefining the shape to be a shape defined by the complement of the difference between the intended effect and the actual effect of the unsatisfactory appliance.”)
Regarding Claim 17: The reference discloses The system of claim 6, wherein the force applied to the virtual teeth is determined based on one or more properties of characteristics of the corresponding virtual dental appliance.
Regarding Claim 18: The reference discloses The system of claim 6, wherein the virtual tooth surface feature comprises an attachment. (Column 10, Lines 1-14, “ As a consequence, the system will generally adjust the performance of the aligner by changing the orientation of the model teeth, the sizes of parts of the model teeth, the position and selection of attachments, and the addition or removal of material (e.g., adding wires or creating dimples) to change the structure of the aligner. The system can optionally adjust the aligner by specifying that one or more of the aligners are to be made of a sheet of a thickness other than the standard one, to provide more or less force to the teeth. On the other hand, if the aligner will be made by a stereo lithography process, the thickness of the aligner can be varied locally, and structural features such as rims, dimples, and corrugations can be added without modifying the digital model of the teeth.”)
Regarding Claim 19: The reference discloses The system of claim 6, wherein the instructions are further executable to generate an optimized virtual dental appliance that accommodates the virtual tooth surface feature at the optimized shape and placement. (Column 10, Lines 1-14, “ As a consequence, the system will generally adjust the performance of the aligner by changing the orientation of the model teeth, the sizes of parts of the model teeth, the position and selection of attachments, and the addition or removal of material (e.g., adding wires or creating dimples) to change the structure of the aligner. The system can optionally adjust the aligner by specifying that one or more of the aligners are to be made of a sheet of a thickness other than the standard one, to provide more or less force to the teeth. On the other hand, if the aligner will be made by a stereo lithography process, the thickness of the aligner can be varied locally, and structural features such as rims, dimples, and corrugations can be added without modifying the digital model of the teeth.”)
Regarding Claim 20: The reference discloses The method of claim 12, wherein the virtual tooth surface feature comprises an attachment. (Column 10, Lines 1-14, “ As a consequence, the system will generally adjust the performance of the aligner by changing the orientation of the model teeth, the sizes of parts of the model teeth, the position and selection of attachments, and the addition or removal of material (e.g., adding wires or creating dimples) to change the structure of the aligner. The system can optionally adjust the aligner by specifying that one or more of the aligners are to be made of a sheet of a thickness other than the standard one, to provide more or less force to the teeth. On the other hand, if the aligner will be made by a stereo lithography process, the thickness of the aligner can be varied locally, and structural features such as rims, dimples, and corrugations can be added without modifying the digital model of the teeth.”)
Regarding Claim 21: The reference discloses The method of claim 20, further comprising generating an optimized virtual dental appliance that accommodates the virtual tooth surface feature at the optimized shape and placement, and fabricating a physical dental appliance corresponding to the optimized virtual dental appliance. (Column 10, Lines 1-14, “ As a consequence, the system will generally adjust the performance of the aligner by changing the orientation of the model teeth, the sizes of parts of the model teeth, the position and selection of attachments, and the addition or removal of material (e.g., adding wires or creating dimples) to change the structure of the aligner. The system can optionally adjust the aligner by specifying that one or more of the aligners are to be made of a sheet of a thickness other than the standard one, to provide more or less force to the teeth. On the other hand, if the aligner will be made by a stereo lithography process, the thickness of the aligner can be varied locally, and structural features such as rims, dimples, and corrugations can be added without modifying the digital model of the teeth.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
7. Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chishti in view of Bassett et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110008754, hereafter Bassett.
Regarding Claim 8: Chishti does not explicitly recite The system of claim 7, the instructions further executable to virtually identify and test force applied to the teeth by a particular virtual dental appliance for bone breakdown.
However Bassett discloses The system of claim 7, the instructions further executable to virtually identify and test force applied to the teeth by a particular virtual dental appliance for bone breakdown. (“[0048] In one form, after the porous block is shaped as described above, it is ready to be implanted. This type of implant may be used on the jaw when the implant will not directly support teeth for example. This may occur if the implant is used to build up bone loss or bone defect areas spaced away from the alveolar such as when dentures, bridges, or other appliances that do not require drilling into the implant are to be placed over the area of the jaw with the implant. It will be appreciated that the implant may be sufficient for bones other than the jaw.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take into account bone loss in dental appliance virtual modeling as per Bassett in view of the modeling of Chishti since
as per [0041] of Bassett, “The virtual teeth also can be used to assess proper bite and chewing function. Rapid prototyping may then be used to form a coping to build a final prosthesis, and the posts may be formed by machining as described below. Once the implant or 3D volume is formed in the model, it can be isolated for fabrication.”
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses The system of claim 8, wherein the force applied to the teeth by the particular virtual dental appliance comprises a force sufficient to enable the one or more virtual teeth to begin moving at a start of the treatment plan. (Chishti. Column 9, Lines 21-28, “a specification of the constraints that the shape or configuration of an aligner must satisfy to be acceptable; a specification of the forces and positioning motions and velocities that are orthodontically acceptable; an initial treatment path, which includes the motion path for each tooth and a segmentation of the treatment path into segments, each segment to be accomplished by one aligner”)
Regarding Claim 10: Chishti does not explicitly recite The system of claim 7, the instructions further executable to virtually identify and test force applied to the one or more virtual teeth by a particular virtual dental appliance for movement after bone restructuring has occurred.
However Bassett discloses The system of claim 7, the instructions further executable to virtually identify and test force applied to the one or more virtual teeth by a particular virtual dental appliance for movement after bone restructuring has occurred. (“[0048] In one form, after the porous block is shaped as described above, it is ready to be implanted. This type of implant may be used on the jaw when the implant will not directly support teeth for example. This may occur if the implant is used to build up bone loss or bone defect areas spaced away from the alveolar such as when dentures, bridges, or other appliances that do not require drilling into the implant are to be placed over the area of the jaw with the implant. It will be appreciated that the implant may be sufficient for bones other than the jaw.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take into account bone restructuring in dental appliance virtual modeling as per Bassett in view of the modeling of Chishti since as per [0041] of Bassett, “The virtual teeth also can be used to assess proper bite and chewing function. Rapid prototyping may then be used to form a coping to build a final prosthesis, and the posts may be formed by machining as described below. Once the implant or 3D volume is formed in the model, it can be isolated for fabrication.”
Conclusion
8. All Claims are rejected.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120015316
ii) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20050079468
iii) Bourauel, Christoph, Dirk Vollmer, and Andreas Jäger. "Application of bone remodeling theories in the simulation of orthodontic tooth movements." Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics/Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 61.4 (2000): 266-279.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights