Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 34-54 are currently presented for Examination.
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 (IDS) submitted on 01/19/2023, 09/20/2023, 03/03/2025 and 06/09/2025 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
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 34-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 34-54 are directed to method or process, that falls on one of statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 34 recites
performing an FEA to virtually deform the appliance digital model based on the anatomy digital model. (it is an abstract idea (specifically, a mathematical concept or mental process) because it merely describes a simulation or data manipulation that could theoretically be done by a human mind or a generic computer, without a tie to a specific, non-generic machine or an improvement in a technical field beyond the simulation itself. It is essentially a process for manipulating data. A claim for a method of "analyzing the stress on a digital dental model by applying a finite element analysis method to simulate a biting force" likely seen by a POSITA as using a known, conventional method (FEA) to automate a general analytical task, which is an abstract idea or mental process performed on a generic computer. For example, an orthodontist informally reasons if I attach this arm, it will push the tooth inward or if the arm is longer, it will flex more. Also, finite element analysis is a mathematical simulation involving numerical calculations and equation solving, which constitutes a mathematical concept under MPEP 2106.04(a))
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a obtaining an appliance digital model characterizing the orthodontic appliance in a pre- installation configuration and obtaining an anatomy digital model characterizing a patient's teeth and gingiva in an original or intermediate arrangement can also be viewed as merely collecting data and falls under the insignificant pre-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) The additional elements of FEA itself is a known engineering tool and can be considered a conventional computer function in a general sense. Merely using a generic computer to perform a known FEA simulation, without more, might be viewed as using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (e.g., a mathematical simulation or physical law). Thus, a method for designing an orthodontic appliance for repositioning a tooth of a patient is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a obtaining an appliance digital model characterizing the orthodontic appliance in a pre- installation configuration and obtaining an anatomy digital model characterizing a patient's teeth and gingiva in an original or intermediate arrangement viewed as merely collecting data and falls under the insignificant pre-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05(d) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014); The additional elements of FEA itself is a known engineering tool and can be considered a conventional computer function in a general sense. Merely using a generic computer to perform a known FEA simulation, without more, might be viewed as using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (e.g., a mathematical simulation or physical law). This claim adds nothing to the software technology used as a tool to perform this mental process and automate it, and it is directed to the design method itself, not the particular product resultant from the design (contrasted with MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)), with nothing more than a token post-solution activity after first determining the geometry of the product to be manufacturing (akin to “i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);” in MPEP § 2106.05(g and f); also in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A): “A claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).”). Thus, a method for designing an orthodontic appliance for repositioning a tooth of a patient is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 35 further recites wherein the appliance digital model comprises an anchor and an arm extending away from the anchor, the arm comprising a proximal portion at the anchor and a distal portion configured to be secured to an orthodontic bracket. It merely recites additional descriptive detail regarding components represented in the appliance digital model. This constitutes data characterization and intended use and do not alter the abstract nature of the mathematical/mental simulation recited in claim 34. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 36 further recites wherein performing the FEA comprises causing the distal portion of the arm to be positioned at or adjacent to one of the patient's teeth. It further limits the abstract simulation of claim 34 by specifying a positional constraint applied to a digital model during finite element analysis. Such positioning constitutes a geometric relationship and numerical boundary condition within the simulation and does not add a physical step or technological improvement. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 37 further recites wherein the anatomy digital model comprises position data of the tooth to be repositioned by the orthodontic appliance when installed in the patient's mouth. It further limits the abstract simulation of claim 24 by merely collecting position data and falls under the insignificant pre-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 38 further recites wherein the data is first position data and the method further comprises: obtaining a desired digital model characterizing the patient's teeth and gingiva in a desired second configuration, the desired digital model comprising second position data of the tooth, determining displacement data characterizing a displacement between the first position data of the tooth and the second position data of the tooth, and wherein performing the FEA is based on the displacement data. These steps, when recited as abstract data processing, fall into the category of judicial exceptions as they resemble mental processes, mathematical formulas, or methods of organizing human activity (e.g., a process for planning a dental treatment). The data itself (digital models of teeth) is informational and not a tangible, patent-eligible article in this context of data manipulation. The claim does not appear to recite additional elements (e.g., specific hardware, an improved FEA method, a tangible product being made) that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The steps are generic data processing functions using conventional computing technology. Because the claim simply recites performing an FEA based on calculated displacement data without a further non-abstract element (such as actually manufacturing a specific, novel orthodontic appliance based on the results using a specific manufacturing process), claim fails Step 2B. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 39 further recites obtaining a deformed intended appliance digital model from the FEA, wherein the deformed intended appliance digital model virtually represents the orthodontic appliance once it has been installed in a patient's mouth with the teeth and gingiva in the original or intermediate arrangement. It amounts to no more than obtaining and representing the results of mathematical analysis, which constitutes insignificant post-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 40 further recites modifying a fixture digital model based on an analysis result of the FEA virtual deformation. A person (or a generic computer program) views or interprets the output data from the FEA, which is a set of numbers representing stress, strain, or displacement. The person mentally decides where and how to alter the design based on the analysis. For example, "the area with the highest stress needs to be thicker." The person then uses a generic computer with standard Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software to input the decided changes (e.g., changing a dimension value, adding material). The generic computer merely performs the instructions provided by the user. As MPEP (2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) states using a computer as tool to perform a mental process falls under the grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 41 further recites modifying the appliance digital model based on an analysis result of the FEA virtual deformation. A person (or a generic computer program) views or interprets the output data from the FEA, which is a set of numbers representing stress, strain, or displacement. The person mentally decides where and how to alter the design based on the analysis. For example, "the area with the highest stress needs to be thicker." The person then uses a generic computer with standard Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software to input the decided changes (e.g., changing a dimension value, adding material). The generic computer merely performs the instructions provided by the user. As MPEP (2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) states using a computer as tool to perform a mental process falls under the grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 42 further recites wherein modifying the appliance digital model comprises modifying a shape and/or configuration of an anchor and/or arms of the orthodontic appliance and/or a geometry of the pre-installation configuration of the orthodontic appliance. A person (or a generic computer program) views or interprets the output data from the FEA, which is a set of numbers representing stress, strain, or displacement. The person mentally decides where and how to alter the design based on the analysis. For example, "the area with the highest stress needs to be thicker." The person then uses a generic computer with standard Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software to input the decided changes (e.g., changing a configuration of an anchor and/or arms). The generic computer merely performs the instructions provided by the user. As MPEP (2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) states using a computer as tool to perform a mental process falls under the grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 43 further recites obtaining an analysis result based on the FEA, wherein the analysis result is a measure of strain in the appliance digital model. The analysis itself is a mathematical process performed by a computer using algorithms. A generic computer simply automates a well-known mathematical process (FEA) to derive data (strain measurements) from other data (the digital model and input parameters). This is considered an abstract idea because the computer implementation merely executes the mental steps or abstract calculations faster and more efficiently than a human could by hand. The computer is used as a tool to perform the calculation, not to invent a new, non-abstract way of measuring strain. The process is the application of a known physical law (e.g., Hooke's law, governing strain) through an established mathematical simulation technique (FEA), which is a "building block" of human reasoning. The mere use of a computer to execute this abstract calculation does not transform the underlying abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 44 further recites obtaining an analysis result based on the FEA, wherein the analysis result is identification of portions of the orthodontic appliance that may impinge on a patient's gingiva. The process described—analyzing data (FEA results) to identify a potential problem area (gingival impingement)—is fundamentally a method of organizing human activity, a diagnostic method, or a mathematical concept. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 45 further recites obtaining an analysis result based on the FEA, wherein the analysis result is a local distance between a portion of the appliance digital model and a portion of the lingual surface of the patient's gingiva in the original or intermediate arrangement, as represented virtually in the anatomy digital model, that exceeds a predetermined threshold. A person can mentally visualize or review provided digital models (the appliance and the patient's anatomy). Although "FEA" (Finite Element Analysis) sounds technical, the underlying concept is a mathematical calculation of distance. A person can mentally compare the position of the appliance model to the gingival model at various points. The person then mentally compares each calculated distance to a predetermined threshold. The person mentally determines if the distance exceeds the threshold. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 46 further recites changing a thickness of a gingiva of the anatomy digital model based on the analysis result. The core of the claim is an idea or concept that can be performed entirely in the human mind or with pen and paper. Analyzing data ("analysis result") and using that analysis to decide how to modify another abstract concept (a digital representation of tissue "thickness") is fundamentally a mental process or a mathematical algorithm. It involves collecting information, making a decision based on that information, and applying that decision, without a concrete, tangible result until later. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 47 further recites increasing a thickness of a gingiva of the anatomy digital model based on the analysis result. The core of the claim is an idea or concept that can be performed entirely in the human mind or with pen and paper. Analyzing data ("analysis result") and using that analysis to decide how to modify another abstract concept (a digital representation of tissue "thickness") is fundamentally a mental process or a mathematical algorithm. It involves collecting information, making a decision based on that information, and applying that decision, without a concrete, tangible result until later. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 48 further recites decreasing a thickness of a gingiva of the anatomy digital model based on the analysis result. The core of the claim is an idea or concept that can be performed entirely in the human mind or with pen and paper. Analyzing data ("analysis result") and using that analysis to decide how to modify another abstract concept (a digital representation of tissue "thickness") is fundamentally a mental process or a mathematical algorithm. It involves collecting information, making a decision based on that information, and applying that decision, without a concrete, tangible result until later. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 49 further recites obtaining an analysis result based on the FEA, wherein the analysis result is a local distance between a portion of the appliance digital model and a portion of the lingual surface of the patient's gingiva in the original or intermediate arrangement, as represented virtually in the anatomy digital model, that is less than a predetermined threshold. A person can mentally visualize or review provided digital models (the appliance and the patient's anatomy). Although "FEA" (Finite Element Analysis) sounds technical, the underlying concept is a mathematical calculation of distance. A person can mentally compare the position of the appliance model to the gingival model at various points. The person then mentally compares each calculated distance to a predetermined threshold. The person mentally determines if the distance exceeds the threshold. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 50 further recites changing a thickness of a gingiva of the anatomy digital model based on the analysis result. The core of the claim is an idea or concept that can be performed entirely in the human mind or with pen and paper. Analyzing data ("analysis result") and using that analysis to decide how to modify another abstract concept (a digital representation of tissue "thickness") is fundamentally a mental process or a mathematical algorithm. It involves collecting information, making a decision based on that information, and applying that decision, without a concrete, tangible result until later. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 51 further recites increasing a thickness of a gingiva of the anatomy digital model based on the analysis result. The core of the claim is an idea or concept that can be performed entirely in the human mind or with pen and paper. Analyzing data ("analysis result") and using that analysis to decide how to modify another abstract concept (a digital representation of tissue "thickness") is fundamentally a mental process or a mathematical algorithm. It involves collecting information, making a decision based on that information, and applying that decision, without a concrete, tangible result until later. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 52 further recites decreasing a thickness of a gingiva of the anatomy digital model based on the analysis result. The core of the claim is an idea or concept that can be performed entirely in the human mind or with pen and paper. Analyzing data ("analysis result") and using that analysis to decide how to modify another abstract concept (a digital representation of tissue "thickness") is fundamentally a mental process or a mathematical algorithm. It involves collecting information, making a decision based on that information, and applying that decision, without a concrete, tangible result until later. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 53 further recites wherein the FEA virtual deformation models the real-world behavior of an orthodontic appliance fabricated based on the appliance digital model when the orthodontic appliance is installed in a patient's mouth with the teeth in the original or intermediate arrangement. It describes a method for simulating a physical phenomenon (tooth movement) in a virtual environment. It describes a mental step of modeling—it is an act of observing, conceptualizing, and predicting behavior, which are classic examples of mental processes. The process is described as being executable using a generic computer. The implementation simply applies well-known computational techniques (FEA algorithms) on standard hardware. Using a general-purpose computer to perform calculations, does not make an otherwise abstract idea concrete or patent-eligible. The computer is merely a tool for automating the mental process, not an inventive step itself. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
Claim 54 further recites increasing wherein the anatomy digital model includes securing portions in the positions of a patient's teeth. The digital model, as described, is a mathematical representation or mental process for planning or visualizing a structure based on a patient's anatomy. The process of digitally "securing portions" (aligning or positioning) in specific locations is essentially a manipulation of data or a mathematical algorithm, which are considered abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 34.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 34, 37-42, 44 and 53-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morton et al. (PUB NO: US20100138025A1)
Regarding claim 34
Morton teaches a method for designing an orthodontic appliance for repositioning a tooth of a patient, (see para 002-003-The present invention relates generally to the field of orthodontics, and more particularly to tooth attachments for engaging a dental repositioning appliance, the attachments having improved or optimized design parameters and/or geometries customized to the individual patient and/or for improved application of a desired force system selected to elicit the identified tooth movement. An objective of orthodontics is to move a patient's teeth to positions where function and/or aesthetics are optimized. See para 007-The present invention provides orthodontic systems and related methods 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.) the method comprising:
obtaining an appliance digital model characterizing the orthodontic appliance in a pre- installation configuration; (see para 87- Inputs to the process include an initial aligner shape 20. Using the input data, the process creates a finite element model of the aligner, attachments, teeth and tissue, with the aligner in place on the teeth (step 210). See para 90-91- As was done with the teeth and tissue, a finite element model is created of the polymeric shell aligner (step 330). 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).)
obtaining an anatomy digital model characterizing a patient's teeth and gingiva in an original or intermediate arrangement; (see para 79-80- From the data so obtained, a digital data set is derived that represents the initial (that is, pretreatment) arrangement of the patient's teeth and other tissues. The initial digital data set, which may include both raw data from scanning operations and data representing surface models derived from the raw data, is processed to segment the tissue constituents from each other (step 120). Advantageously, digital models of entire teeth are produced, including measured or extrapolated hidden surfaces and root structures as well as surrounding bone and soft tissue. See para 122- In one aspect, the data set associated with the teeth, gingiva and/or other oral tissue, or structures)
performing an FEA to virtually deform the appliance digital model based on the anatomy digital model. (see para 87-Using the input data, the process creates a finite element model of the aligner, attachments, teeth and tissue, with the aligner in place on the teeth (step 210). Next, the process applies a finite element analysis to the composite finite element model of aligner, teeth, tissue, etc. (step 220). See para 91- finite element analysis is begun to find a solution to the composite model and compute the movement of the teeth under the influence of the distorted aligner.)
Regarding claim 37
Morton further teaches wherein the anatomy digital model comprises position data of the tooth to be repositioned by the orthodontic appliance when installed in the patient's mouth. (see para 81-82-Generally, in this step, the position of every tooth is specified. Having both a beginning position and a final position for each tooth, the process next defines a tooth path for the motion of each tooth. In one embodiment, the tooth paths are optimized in the aggregate so that the teeth are moved in the quickest fashion with the least amount of round-tripping to bring the teeth from their initial positions to their desired final positions.)
Regarding claim 38
Morton further teaches wherein the data is first position data (see para 81-the position of every tooth is specified.)
and the method further comprises: obtaining a desired digital model characterizing the patient's teeth and gingiva in a desired second configuration, (see para 81-The desired final position of the teeth—that is, the desired and intended end result of the orthodontic treatment or phase of orthodontic treatment—can be received from a clinician in the form of a prescription, can be calculated from basic orthodontic principles, or can be extrapolated computationally from a clinical prescription (step 130). . With a specification of the desired final positions of the teeth and a digital representation of the teeth themselves, the final position and surface geometry of each tooth can be specified (step 140) to form a complete model of the teeth at the desired end of treatment.)
the desired digital model comprising second position data of the tooth, (see para 81-With a specification of the desired final positions of the teeth and a digital representation of the teeth themselves, the final position and surface geometry of each tooth can be specified (step 140) to form a complete model of the teeth at the desired end of treatment. Generally, in this step, the position of every tooth is specified.)
determining displacement data characterizing a displacement between the first position data of the tooth and the second position data of the tooth, (see para 82-Having both a beginning position and a final position for each tooth, the process next defines a tooth path for the motion of each tooth (step 150). The tooth paths are segmented.)
and wherein performing the FEA is based on the displacement data. (see para 87-Inputs to the process include an initial aligner shape 202, various control parameters 204, and a desired end configuration for the teeth at the end of the current treatment path segment 206. Next, the process applies a finite element analysis to the composite finite element model of aligner, teeth, tissue, etc. (step 220). See para 92From the input path information, the input data 404 includes the initial tooth positions for the current path segment, the desired tooth positions at the end of the current path segment, the maximum allowable displacement velocity for each tooth, and the maximum allowable force of each kind for each tooth.)
Regarding claim 39
Morton further teaches obtaining a deformed intended appliance digital model from the FEA, (see para 87-Using the input data, the process creates a finite element model of the aligner, attachments, teeth and tissue, with the aligner in place on the teeth (step 210). See para 91-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. Optionally, the tooth positions used are as estimated from a probabilistic model based on prior treatment steps and other patient information. 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.)
wherein the deformed intended appliance digital model virtually represents the orthodontic appliance once it has been installed in a patient's mouth with the teeth and gingiva in the original or intermediate arrangement. (see para 91- 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). See para 79-82-From the data so obtained, a digital data set is derived that represents the initial (that is, pretreatment) arrangement of the patient's teeth and other tissues. The initial digital data set, which may include both raw data from scanning operations and data representing surface models derived from the raw data, is processed to segment the tissue constituents from each other (step 120). Advantageously, digital models of entire teeth are produced, including measured or extrapolated hidden surfaces and root structures as well as surrounding bone and soft tissue. 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. In this way, the end points of each path segment can constitute a clinically viable repositioning. See para 87-Other inputs include digital models of the teeth in position in the jaw, models of the jaw tissue, attachment placement and configuration, and specifications of an initial aligner shape and of the aligner material. See para 122- In one aspect, the data set associated with the teeth, gingiva and/or other oral tissue, or structures)
Regarding claim 40
Morton further teaches modifying a fixture digital model based on an analysis result of the FEA virtual deformation. (see para 103- For example, if any impossible movements were required (step 620), that is, if the shape calculation process 200 (FIG. 10B) was required to effect a motion for which no rule or adjustment was available, the process 600 proceeds to execute a module that calculates the configuration of a hardware attachment to the subject tooth to which forces can be applied to effect the required motion (step 640). See para 110-Thus, one or more tooth attachments can be selectively added, modified/customized, and included in appliance design and fabrication, with appliance and attachment design and fabrication. See para 87- If an acceptable end position is reached, the motions of the teeth calculated by the finite elements analysis are evaluated to determine whether they are orthodontically acceptable (step 232). If they are not, the process also proceeds to calculate a new candidate aligner shape (step 240). If the motions are orthodontically acceptable and the teeth have reached an acceptable position, the current aligner shape is compared to the previously calculated aligner shapes)
Regarding claim 41
Morton further teaches modifying the appliance digital model based on an analysis result of the FEA virtual deformation. (See para 87- If an acceptable end position is reached, the motions of the teeth calculated by the finite elements analysis are evaluated to determine whether they are orthodontically acceptable (step 232). If they are not, the process also proceeds to calculate a new candidate aligner shape (step 240). If the motions are orthodontically acceptable and the teeth have reached an acceptable position, the current aligner shape is compared to the previously calculated aligner shapes. See para 119- Based on the movement vector, and the modeled aligner and/or attachment, the aligner and/or attachment is further modified or reconfigured to factor in the determined movement vector)
Regarding claim 42
Morton further teaches wherein modifying the appliance digital model comprises modifying a shape and/or configuration of an anchor and/or arms of the orthodontic appliance and/or a geometry of the pre-installation configuration of the orthodontic appliance. (see para 61-Attachment parameters having values that can be selected/modified according to the present invention include any parameter or feature of an attachment that, if modified, effects a force or torque applied to a patient's tooth, on which it is disposed, during orthodontic treatment. Generally speaking, non-limiting examples of attachment parameters can include or relate to attachment, in whole or in part, geometry, shape, sizing, composition, positioning, and the like. Attachment parameter values can be selected or modified for optimization (e.g., selected movement optimization) and/or patient customization. See para 103-the process 600 proceeds to execute a module that calculates the configuration of a hardware attachment to the subject tooth to which forces can be applied to effect the required motion. See para 110-Thus, one or more tooth attachments can be selectively added, modified/customized, and included in appliance design and fabrication, with appliance and attachment design and fabrication, and incorporation of appliances in a treatment plan as described above.)
Regarding claim 44
Morton further teaches obtaining an analysis result based on the FEA, wherein the analysis result is identification of portions of the orthodontic appliance that may impinge on a patient's gingiva. (See also para 87- If an acceptable end position is reached, the motions of the teeth calculated by the finite elements analysis are evaluated to determine whether they are orthodontically acceptable. See para 91- finite element analysis is begun to find a solution to the composite model and compute the movement of the teeth under the influence of the distorted aligner. See para 110-114- . For example, changes, distortions and the like can be analyzed or determined computationally in terms of probability of occurrence, as well as whether such changes/distortions would be beneficial or detrimental to the desired loading and tooth movement. In one aspect, to compensate for the undesirable force (for example, as shown in FIG. 15B by the arrow), a predetermined relief (for example, but not limited to, 0.1 to 0.3 mm) may be provided such that the contact between the aligner and the tooth that resulted in the undesirable force vector is avoided. There may be a gap or pocket that forms between the tooth and the aligner, for example, as shown in FIG. 16, near the gingival area)
Regarding claim 53
Morton further teaches wherein the FEA virtual deformation models the real-world behavior of an orthodontic appliance fabricated based on the appliance digital model when the orthodontic appliance is installed in a patient's mouth with the teeth in the original or intermediate arrangement. (see para 53-55-FIG. 1A shows one exemplary adjustment appliance 10 which is worn by the patient in order to achieve an incremental repositioning of individual teeth in the jaw 11. As set forth in the prior applications, an appliance can be designed and/or provided as part of a set or plurality of appliances and treatment can be administered according to a treatment plan. In such an embodiment, each appliance may be configured so that one or more tooth-receiving cavities has a geometry corresponding to an intermediate or final tooth arrangement intended for the appliance. See para 76-It will be recognized that appliance design and fabrication is not limited to any particular method and can include various computer and non-computer-based methodologies. See para 86-91-Having calculated appliance definitions, the process 100 can proceed to the manufacturing step (step 180) in which appliances defined by the process are manufactured, or electronic or printed information is produced that can be used by a manual or automated process to define appliance configurations or changes to appliance configurations. 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. finite element analysis is begun to find a solution to the composite model and compute the movement of the teeth under the influence of the distorted aligner.)
Regarding claim 54
Morton further teaches wherein the anatomy digital model includes securing portions in the positions of a patient's teeth. (see para 79-81- a digital data set is derived that represents the initial (that is, pretreatment) arrangement of the patient's teeth and other tissues. The initial digital data set, which may include both raw data from scanning operations and data representing surface models derived from the raw data, is processed to segment the tissue constituents from each other (step 120). In particular, in this step, data structures that digitally represent individual tooth crowns are produced. Generally, in this step, the position of every tooth is specified. See also para 89-91- boundary conditions specifying the immovable boundaries of the model elements. In one implementation, the model elements include only models of the teeth, a model of a highly viscous embedding substrate fluid, and boundary conditions that define, in effect, a rigid container in which the modeled fluid is held. 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. The surfaces of the aligner and the teeth are modeled to interact without friction at this stage, so that the aligner model achieves the correct initial configuration over the model teeth)
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claim(s) 35-36, 43 and 45-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton et al. (PUB NO: US20100138025A1) in view of Raby et al. "(PUB NO: US20170367792A1)
Regarding claim 35
Morton further teaches wherein the appliance digital model comprises an arm (see para 54- The attachment is coupled to a surface of the tooth on the tooth crown and can couple with or engage a dental appliance or aligner as illustrated in FIG. 1A when the appliance is worn by the patient. see para 137-138- The origin of the y-axis of the PRAA (Oy) is the position of the PRAA origin along the height of the tooth crown that may affect the force output. The origin of the z-axis of the PRAA (Oz) is the arm length defined as the distance between a force application point to the longitudinal axis of the tooth 2400. See also para 151)
Morton does not teach an anchor and an arm extending away from the anchor, the arm comprising a proximal portion at the anchor and a distal portion configured to be secured to an orthodontic bracket.
In the related field of invention, Raby teaches an anchor and an arm extending away from the anchor, the arm comprising a proximal portion at the anchor and a distal portion configured to be secured to an orthodontic bracket. (See para [0063-0065] Removable dental appliance 100 further includes anchors 120. In some examples, removable dental appliance 100 may include a catch configured to connect to an orthodontic anchorage device within the mouth of the patient. Such a catch may be located on one or both of anchors 120. Each of anchors 120 includes a band 122 configured to accept a tooth of the patient and a strut 121 coupling the band 122 to the appliance body/active band 112. See para 77-79- Upper removable dental appliance 101 also includes hooks or other features to connect to elastic ligatures 142. To prevent elastic ligatures 142 from pulling upper removable dental appliance 101 and lower removable dental appliance 100 off the teeth one or both of upper removable dental appliance 101 and lower removable dental appliance 100 may engage bonded attachments on the teeth. See para 130-In particular, each of anchors 720 includes a proximal portion 724 that connects to appliance body 702.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of tooth attachments for engaging a dental repositioning appliance as disclosed by Morton to include an anchor and an arm extending away from the anchor, the arm comprising a proximal portion at the anchor and a distal portion configured to be secured to an orthodontic bracket as taught by Raby in the system of Morton for selection of proper appliances for the particular patient, placement of appliances in the mouth, and adjustment of appliances throughout treatment. Another motivation is to visualize the patient's dentition to diagnose and assist in orthodontic treatment planning at any stage of treatment that can be used in manufacturing appliances, such as brackets, that are customized to the patient. (see para [0003] and abstract, Raby)
Regarding claim 36
Morton further teaches wherein performing the FEA comprises causing the distal portion of the arm to be positioned at or adjacent to one of the patient's teeth. (see para 91- The model aligner is then computationally manipulated to place it over the modeled teeth. See also para 97- a change in the aligner is calculated in the region of the currently selected tooth (step 450) a change in the aligner is calculated in the region of the currently selected tooth (step 450). See para 146-154- The model aligner is then computationally manipulated to place it over the modeled teeth. Specifically, the activator 2600 is provided in the aligner and is used in conjunction with the attachment 2500 formed on a tooth to rotate the tooth. The following parameters are used to control the positioning of the attachment on a tooth and the activator on the aligner: 1) the origin z of PRAA (Oz) which is the distance from the attachment's origin to the facial axis of a clinical crown (FACC) point occlusally; 2) the origin of the y-axis of the PRAA (Oy) which corresponds to the arm length. The attachment parameters are computed based on the initial shape and position of the attachment (step 2735). Example attachment parameters include arm vector, arm length, clipping plane area, clipping plane width, and clipping plane length. The shape of the attachment is modified if any of the parameter values do not fall within a predetermined range of values (step 2740). If all of the parameter values are within the acceptable range, the shape and position of the attachment does not require modification. FIG. 25 illustrates positioning constraints that should be satisfied when determining a position of the attachment on a tooth. When determining the attachment's position, the following parameters are considered: 1) gingiva line; 2) IP zone (on tooth's facial side); 3) interproximal boundary from distal/mesial extreme point; 4) middle plane (x-z plane); and 5) tooth incisal edge constraint.)
Regarding claim 43
Morton further teaches obtaining an analysis result based on the FEA, (see para 63-As noted above, appliances or aligners accomplish tooth movement by applying a series or system of forces (force system) comprised of forces, the moment of a force, and the moment of a couple to a tooth to elicit a biological response of the periodontal tissues and bone structures which surround the tooth. See also para 87- If an acceptable end position is reached, the motions of the teeth calculated by the finite elements analysis are evaluated to determine whether they are orthodontically acceptable. See para 91- finite element analysis is begun to find a solution to the composite model and compute the movement of the teeth under the influence of the distorted aligner)
Morton does not teach wherein the analysis result is a measure of strain in the appliance digital model
However, Raby further teaches wherein the analysis result is a measure of strain in the appliance digital model. (See para 89-90- In some examples, determining dimensions and shapes of the removable dental appliance includes selecting, with computer 70, the dimensions and shapes of the removable dental appliance according to a set of predefined design constraints. The set of predesigned design constraints may include one or more factors, including, but not limited to, a maximum localized force applied to one or more of the surrounded teeth, a maximum rotational force applied to one or more of the surrounded teeth, a maximum translational force applied to one or more of the surrounded teeth, a maximum total force applied to one or more of the surrounded teeth, and a maximum strain applied to the removable dental appliance when worn by the patient when the surrounded teeth are in their initial positions. Computer 70 may use finite element analysis (FEA) techniques to analyze forces on a patient's teeth as well as the removable dental appliance during the determination of the dimensions and shapes of the removable dental appliance. For example, computer 70 may apply FEA to a solid model of the patient's teeth as the modeled teeth move from their initial positions to their final positions representing a treatment including an ordered set of removable dental appliances. Computer 70 may use FEA select appropriate of the removable dental appliance to apply the desired forces on the teeth.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of tooth attachments for engaging a dental repositioning appliance as disclosed by Morton to include herein the analysis result is a measure of strain in the appliance digital model as taught by Raby in the system of Morton for selection of proper appliances for the particular patient, placement of appliances in the mouth, and adjustment of appliances throughout treatment. Another motivation is to visualize the patient's dentition to diagnose and assist in orthodontic treatment planning at any stage of treatment that can be used in manufacturing appliances, such as brackets, that are customized to the patient. (see para [0003] and abstract, Raby)
Regarding claim 45
Morton further teaches obtaining an analysis result based on the FEA, wherein the analysis result is a local distance between a portion of the appliance digital model and a portion of the . (See para 80- Advantageously, digital models of entire teeth are produced, including measured or extrapolated hidden surfaces and root structures as well as surrounding bone and soft tissue. See para 87-the motions of the teeth calculated by the finite elements analysis are evaluated to determine whether they are orthodontically acceptable. See para 148-If the movement is more than a specified threshold, the tooth is identified as requiring an attachment. see para 151-152-In addition, the constraint thresholds should be satisfied, such as the distance to the gingival curve.)
Morton does not teach lingual surface of the patient’s gingiva.
However, Raby further teaches lingual surface of the patient’s gingiva. (see para 005-The appliance body includes a facial portion configured to register with facial sides of the surrounded teeth, and a lingual portion configured to register with lingual sides of the surrounded teeth. See para 28- The dental structure may include, but is not limited to, any portion of crowns and/or roots of one or more teeth of a dental arch, gingiva, periodontal ligaments, alveolar bone, cortical bone, implants, artificial crowns, bridges, veneers, dentures, orthodontic appliances, or any structure that could be considered part of the dentition before, during, or after treatment.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of tooth attachments for engaging a dental repositioning appliance as disclosed by Morton to include lingual surface of the patient’s gingiva as taught by Raby in the system of Morton for selection of proper appliances for the particular patient, placement of appliances in the mouth, and adjustment of appliances throughout treatment. Another motivation is to visualize the patient's dentition to diagnose and assist in orthodontic treatment planning at any stage of treatment that can be used in manufacturing appliances, such as brackets, that are customized to the patient. (see para [0003] and abstract, Raby)
Regarding claim 46
Morton further teaches changing a thickness of a gingiva of the anatomy digital model based on the analysis result. (See para 122-In one aspect, the data set associated with the teeth, gingiva and/or other oral tissue, or structures may be intentionally altered through, for example, addition, partial or total subtraction, uniform or non-uniform scaling, Boolean or non-Boolean algorithm, or geometric operations, or one or more combinations thereof, for the configuration, modeling and/or manufacturing of the dental appliance that may be optimized for the desired or intended treatment goal. See para 110-For example, changes, distortions and the like can be analyzed or determined computationally in terms of probability of occurrence, as well as whether such changes/distortions would be beneficial or detrimental to the desired loading and tooth movement. See para 115-Referring to FIG. 16, the optimization of the aligner shape geometry to address the formed gap or pocket)
Morton explicitly does not say thickness of a gingiva.
However, Raby further teaches thickness of a gingiva. (See para 73-Similarly, an increase in the width (i.e., occlusal gingival thickness) of the active band 112 of removable dental appliance 100 will result in an increase in the radius of the couple, which will increase the applied force during appliance deformation.)
Regarding claim 47
Morton further teaches increasing a thickness of a gingiva of the anatomy digital model based on the analysis result. (See para 122-In one aspect, the data set associated with the teeth, gingiva and/or other oral tissue, or structures may be intentionally altered through, for example, addition, partial or total subtraction, uniform or non-uniform scaling, Boolean or non-Boolean algorithm, or geometric operations, or one or more combinations thereof, for the configuration, modeling and/or manufacturing of the dental appliance that may be optimized for the desired or intended treatment goal. See para 110-For example, changes, distortions and the like can be analyzed or determined computationally in terms of probability of occurrence, as well as whether such changes/distortions would be beneficial or detrimental to the desired loading and tooth movement. See para 115-Referring to FIG. 16, the optimization of the aligner shape geometry to address the formed gap or pocket)
Morton explicitly does not say thickness of a gingiva.
However, Raby further teaches thickness of a gingiva. (See para 73-Similarly, an increase in the width (i.e., occlusal gingival thickness) of the active band 112 of removable dental appliance 100 will result in an increase in the radius of the couple, which will increase the applied force during appliance deformation.)
Regarding claim 48
Morton further teaches decreasing a thickness of a gingiva of the anatomy digital model based on the analysis result. (See para 122-In one aspect, the data set associated with the teeth, gingiva and/or other oral tissue, or structures may be intentionally altered through, for example, addition, partial or total subtraction, uniform or non-uniform scaling, Boolean or non-Boolean algorithm, or geometric operations, or one or more combinations thereof, for the configuration, modeling and/or manufacturing of the dental appliance that may be optimized for the desired or intended treatment goal. See para 110-For example, changes, distortions and the like can be analyzed or determined computationally in terms of probability of occurrence, as well as whether such changes/distortions would be beneficial or detrimental to the desired loading and tooth movement. See para 115-Referring to FIG. 16, the optimization of the aligner shape geometry to address the formed gap or pocket)
Morton explicitly does not say thickness of a gingiva.
However, Raby further teaches thickness of a gingiva. (See para 73-Similarly, an increase in the width (i.e., occlusal gingival thickness) of the active band 112 of removable dental appliance 100 will result in an increase in the radius of the couple, which will increase the applied force during appliance deformation.)
Regarding claim 49
Morton further teaches obtaining an analysis result based on the FEA, wherein the analysis result is a local distance between a portion of the appliance digital model and a portion of the . (See para 80- Advantageously, digital models of entire teeth are produced, including measured or extrapolated hidden surfaces and root structures as well as surrounding bone and soft tissue. See para 87-the motions of the teeth calculated by the finite elements analysis are evaluated to determine whether they are orthodontically acceptable. See para 148-If the movement is more than a specified threshold, the tooth is identified as requiring an attachment. see para 151-152-In addition, the constraint thresholds should be satisfied, such as the distance to the gingival curve.)
Morton does not teach lingual surface of the patient’s gingiva.
However, Raby further teaches lingual surface of the patient’s gingiva. (See para 005-The appliance body includes a facial portion configured to register with facial sides of the surrounded teeth, and a lingual portion configured to register with lingual sides of the surrounded teeth. See para 28- The dental structure may include, but is not limited to, any portion of crowns and/or roots of one or more teeth of a dental arch, gingiva, periodontal ligaments, alveolar bone, cortical bone, implants, artificial crowns, bridges, veneers, dentures, orthodontic appliances, or any structure that could be considered part of the dentition before, during, or after treatment.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of tooth attachments for engaging a dental repositioning appliance as disclosed by Morton to include lingual surface of the patient’s gingiva as taught by Raby in the system of Morton for selection of proper appliances for the particular patient, placement of appliances in the mouth, and adjustment of appliances throughout treatment. Another motivation is to visualize the patient's dentition to diagnose and assist in orthodontic treatment planning at any stage of treatment that can be used in manufacturing appliances, such as brackets, that are customized to the patient. (see para [0003] and abstract, Raby)
Regarding claim 50
Morton further teaches changing a thickness of a gingiva of the anatomy digital model based on the analysis result. (see para 122-In one aspect, the data set associated with the teeth, gingiva and/or other oral tissue, or structures may be intentionally altered through, for example, addition, partial or total subtraction, uniform or non-uniform scaling, Boolean or non-Boolean algorithm, or geometric operations, or one or more combinations thereof, for the configuration, modeling and/or manufacturing of the dental appliance that may be optimized for the desired or intended treatment goal. See para 110-For example, changes, distortions and the like can be analyzed or determined computationally in terms of probability of occurrence, as well as whether such changes/distortions would be beneficial or detrimental to the desired loading and tooth movement. See para 115-Referring to FIG. 16, the optimization of the aligner shape geometry to address the formed gap or pocket)
Morton explicitly does not say thickness of a gingiva.
However, Raby further teaches thickness of a gingiva. (See para 73-Similarly, an increase in the width (i.e., occlusal gingival thickness) of the active band 112 of removable dental appliance 100 will result in an increase in the radius of the couple, which will increase the applied force during appliance deformation.)
Regarding claim 51
Morton further teaches increasing a thickness of a gingiva of the anatomy digital model based on the analysis result. (see para 122-In one aspect, the data set associated with the teeth, gingiva and/or other oral tissue, or structures may be intentionally altered through, for example, addition, partial or total subtraction, uniform or non-uniform scaling, Boolean or non-Boolean algorithm, or geometric operations, or one or more combinations thereof, for the configuration, modeling and/or manufacturing of the dental appliance that may be optimized for the desired or intended treatment goal. See para 110-For example, changes, distortions and the like can be analyzed or determined computationally in terms of probability of occurrence, as well as whether such changes/distortions would be beneficial or detrimental to the desired loading and tooth movement. See para 115-Referring to FIG. 16, the optimization of the aligner shape geometry to address the formed gap or pocket)
Morton explicitly does not say thickness of a gingiva.
However, Raby further teaches thickness of a gingiva. (See para 73-Similarly, an increase in the width (i.e., occlusal gingival thickness) of the active band 112 of removable dental appliance 100 will result in an increase in the radius of the couple, which will increase the applied force during appliance deformation.)
Regarding claim 52
Morton further teaches decreasing a thickness of a gingiva of the anatomy digital model based on the analysis result. (see para 122-In one aspect, the data set associated with the teeth, gingiva and/or other oral tissue, or structures may be intentionally altered through, for example, addition, partial or total subtraction, uniform or non-uniform scaling, Boolean or non-Boolean algorithm, or geometric operations, or one or more combinations thereof, for the configuration, modeling and/or manufacturing of the dental appliance that may be optimized for the desired or intended treatment goal. See para 110-For example, changes, distortions and the like can be analyzed or determined computationally in terms of probability of occurrence, as well as whether such changes/distortions would be beneficial or detrimental to the desired loading and tooth movement. See para 115-Referring to FIG. 16, the optimization of the aligner shape geometry to address the formed gap or pocket)
Morton explicitly does not say thickness of a gingiva.
However, Raby further teaches thickness of a gingiva. (See para 73-Similarly, an increase in the width (i.e., occlusal gingival thickness) of the active band 112 of removable dental appliance 100 will result in an increase in the radius of the couple, which will increase the applied force during appliance deformation.)
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matov et al. US 20200214800 A1
ii. Discussing the method of generating an orthodontic model. The method include: generating an initial model of a patient dentition; generating a target model of the patient dentition; defining a plurality of caps and a plurality of links, wherein each link connects two of the plurality of caps; generating a relaxed model of a dental appliance from the plurality of caps and the plurality of links; generating a deformed model of a dental appliance from the plurality of caps and plurality of links; and determining a plurality of movements, wherein the plurality of moments transform the relaxed model to the deformed model and wherein the moments are configured to direct the patient dentition from the initial model to the target model.
Domroese et al. US 20220047358 A1
ii. Discussing the removable dental appliance that includes an appliance body configured to at least partially surround a plurality of teeth of a dental arch of a patient. The appliance body includes a shell shaped to engage a tooth in an initial position and a gingival ridge extending from a mesial interproximal region along a gingival edge of the shell to a distal interproximal region. The gingival ridge is configured to engage a lingual or labial surface of the tooth below a height of contour of the tooth to enable the appliance body to apply a force vector at a contact point on the tooth to cause movement of the tooth toward a desired position of the tooth when the removable dental appliance is worn by the patient.
7. All claims 34-54 are rejected.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
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 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186