DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
For claim 20, provisional application 63329315 does not disclose “wherein the simulated retention value is further based on a direction of each of the angles between the reference vector and corresponding surface normal vector”. Paragraph [0058] discloses calculating cosines of the surface angles and further discusses angles greater than 90 degrees; however, the specific claim language of basing the retention value on a direction of each angle in not disclosed.
For the purpose of examination, the priority date for claims 1-19 is 04/08/2022. The priority date for claim 20 is 04/10/2023.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
For claim 20, the specification does not disclose “wherein the simulated retention value is further based on a direction of each of the angles between the reference vector and corresponding surface normal vector”. Paragraph [0074] discloses calculating cosines of the surface angles and further discusses angles greater than 90 degrees; however, the specific claim language of basing the retention value on a direction of each angle in not disclosed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
-LR1-LR8
-308, Fig. 3
-1204, Fig. 12A
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9-10, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, “simulating a retention value for each of the zones”, should be amended to state, “simulating a retention value for each of the plurality of zones”.
Claims 9, recites the limitation "the one or more attachment locations" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10, recites the limitation "the one or more attachment locations" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14, lines 1-2 repeat the phrase, “wherein the generating the plurality of zones”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Determination as to whether the claims are directed to a statutory category as specified in 35 U.S.C. 101 (MPEP 2106.03)
The claim(s) recite(s) a method for digital simulation of a retentiveness of a dental aligner and a non-transient, computer readable medium for modifying a treatment plan based on estimates of retentiveness falling into the categories of a process and product (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A Prong 1 – Determination as to whether the claims recite a Judicial Exception including an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP 2106.04)
Regarding claim 1, the steps of generating a plurality of zones and simulating a retention value for each of the zones using angles between surface normal vectors and one or more reference vectors are abstract ideas capable of being performed in the human mind. Dividing the teeth into zones and calculating angles between the surfaces of the teeth via a model can be accomplished without the use of a computer. Further, orthodontists have long performed geometry by hand on models of the patient’s teeth to elicit effective orthodontic treatment. The initializing step is considered pre-solution activity, and the outputting step is considered post-solution activity.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 6, the abstract idea of generating a plurality of zones is further defined, and does not amount to more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 3-4, the initializing step and associated treatment plan is further defined, and do not amount to more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 5, the abstract ideas, pre-solution and post-solution activity of claim 1 are repeated and thus, do not amount to more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 7-8, the abstract idea of simulating a retention value for each of the zones is further defined, and does not amount to more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 9-10, the steps of determining a shape and size of one or more retention-enhancing attachments, adding one or more retention-enhancing attachments and modifying the treatment plan are abstract ideas, capable of being performed in the human mind. An orthodontist can model the desired attachments and modify the treatment plan in response to adding the attachments without the use of a computer.
Examiner recommends amending the language of claim 1 to include the fabrication step.
Regarding claim 12, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises instructions for performing the steps of generating a plurality of zones and simulating a retention value for each of the zones using angles between surface normal vectors and one or more reference vectors, which are abstract ideas capable of being performed in the human mind. Dividing the teeth into zones and calculating angles between the surfaces of the teeth via a model can be accomplished without the use of a computer. Further, orthodontists have long performed geometry by hand on models of the patient’s teeth to elicit effective orthodontic treatment. The initializing step is considered pre-solution activity, and the outputting step is considered post-solution activity.
Regarding dependent claim 13, the step of outputting attachment locations based on the retention values is an abstract idea, capable of being performed in the human mind. An orthodontist is capable of viewing the patient’s dentition and adding attachments based on areas of predicted low retention.
Regarding dependent claim 14, the abstract idea of generating a plurality of zones is further defined, and do not amount to more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 15-17, and 20 the abstract idea of simulating a retention value for each of the zones is further defined, and does not amount to more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 18-19, the steps of determining a shape and size of one or more retention-enhancing attachments, adding one or more retention-enhancing attachments and modifying the treatment plan are abstract ideas, capable of being performed in the human mind. An orthodontist can model the desired attachments and modify the treatment plan in response to adding the attachments without the use of a computer.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Determination as to whether the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: Regarding claims 1-10, and 12-20, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea(s) to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The method steps of claims 1-10 are means of transforming data obtained from the patient’s dentition in the first step of claim 1. For the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims (12-20), the computer implementation by incorporation of a processor to perform the steps of claim 1 are insignificant extra solution activity and do not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood and conventional. For at least these reasons and as claims 1-10, and 12-20 do not recite additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the abstract mental processes and mathematical concepts identified for claims 1-10, 12-20 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B – Determination as to whether the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Regarding claims 1-10, and 11-20, as set forth above with respect to Step 2A Prong One, the claimed method steps are all capable of being performed mentally and represent nothing more than concepts related to performing observations, evaluations, and judgements, which fall within the judicial exception, with the non-transitory computer-readable medium performing these steps also falling within the judicial exception. The claimed steps of generating a plurality of zones and simulating a retention value for each of the zones using angles between surface normal vectors and one or more reference vectors require nothing more than a generic computer processor. The disclosure does not describe additional features to suggest these devices are beyond a generic component for the apparatus. Additionally, the design method is not disclosed as improving the manner in which the apparatus operates. Mere recitation of generic conventional processing used in a conventional manner to perform conventional computer functions that are well understood and routine does not amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. The claims do not go beyond inputting data (“obtaining”) and processing data ( “determining” and "generating") with a standard computer.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. The claims set forth do not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine and they do not require that the method particularly transforms a particular article. When viewed as a combination, the identified additional elements set forth a process of analyzing information of specific content and are not directed to any particularly asserted inventive technology for performing these functions. The disclosure and claims do not require anything beyond a generic computer to obtain and analyze the data according to mathematical algorithms. Therefore, the claimed method and apparatus fall within the judicial exception to patent eligible subject matter of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton et al. (US 20100138025 A1), herein referred to as Morton, in view of Raslambekov et al. (US 11166787 B1), herein referred to as Raslambekov.
Regarding claim 1, Morton discloses a method (100) for digital simulation of a retentiveness of a dental aligner (Refer to Paragraphs [0063], [0078], Fig. 10A; as the function of an aligner is to apply repositioning forces, Examiner understands “aligner retentiveness”, as the ability of the aligner to engage or grip the patient’s teeth and/or attachments on the teeth and thus, apply the required forces for repositioning; Morton discloses methods that account for various factors which can have a significant effect on imparting a precise force system to a tooth, including probability of engagement between the aligner), the method (100) comprising:
initializing a 3D model of a patient's dentition based on a stage of a treatment plan corresponding to the dental aligner (step 420) (Refer to Paragraphs [0087], [0092]; processes 200 and 400 are subprocesses of the method (100); the input data 404 includes the initial tooth positions for the current path segment);
generating a plurality of zones, each having one or more teeth from the 3D model of the patient's dentition (refer to Paragraphs [0080], [0092], [0094]; data structures that digitally represent individual tooth crowns are produced, where each individual tooth identified as movable is a zone);
simulating the dental aligner for each of the zones (process 400) (refer to Paragraphs [0092], [0094], Fig. 12; the process iterates over the movable teeth in the model, calculating the shape of the aligner for the current tooth); and
outputting one or more indicators of the probability that the dental aligner will improperly fit the patient's dentition (step 652) (refer to Paragraphs [0087], [0104], [0101]; Examiner understands “an improperly fitting aligner”, as an aligner that does not affect the desired force on the patient’s dentition to position the teeth to the desired final position; process 600 is a subprocess of the method (100); at the computation of additional hardware (step 640) and other additional steps, the process can interact with a human operator, such as a clinician or technician, to request assistance (step 652) based on remaining unacceptable aligners, equating to an indicator; an unacceptable aligner is an aligner shape where an acceptable end position of the teeth is not reached, and as the function of an aligner is to apply force to reposition teeth, failing to successfully reposition the teeth is analogous to an improperly fitting aligner).
Morton is silent to simulating a retention value for each of the zones, based on one or more angles between one or more surface normal vectors of one or more teeth within each zone, and one or more reference vectors parallel to a long axis of each of the one or more teeth within each zone; and outputting one or more indicators of the probability that the dental aligner will improperly fit the patient's dentition based on the retention values.
Raslambekov discloses a method (1000) of determining a coupling point for an attachment on a subject’s tooth in the same field of endeavor (refer to col. 16, lines 65-68, Fig. 11). The method (100) includes generating a plurality of zones, each having one or more teeth from the 3D model of the patient's dentition (refer to col. 16, lines 15-28; each tooth of the lower teeth 16 is segmented to obtain a plurality of segmented crown portions or zones) and simulating a retention value (degree of relevance) for each of the zones, based on one or more angles between one or more surface normal vectors of one or more teeth within each zone, and one or more reference vectors parallel to a long axis of each of the one or more teeth within each zone (1030) (refer to col. 12, lines 2-4, col. 26, lines 34-46, col. 27, lines 1-7, Fig. 6; for each location on a given tooth or zone, an angle difference of a normal axis with the tooth axis is determined; the degree of relevance is based on how far the determined angle deviates from the predetermined angle value; by definition, all collinear lines are also parallel (https://www.ck12.org/flexi/cbse-math/vectors/differentiate-between-collinear-and-parallel-vectors./), thus the determined tooth axis is parallel to a long axis of the tooth), and outputting one or more indicators based on the retention values (degrees of relevance) (1030) (refer to col. 7, lines 50-55, col. 26, lines 32-46, col. 27, lines 54-59; Examiner understands “retention value” as a value which describes the ability of the aligner to engage the patient’s teeth and thus, apply the required forces for repositioning; the degree of relevance indicates where positioning an attachment will result in optimization of applied forces, thus also indicating aligner engagement or retentiveness; the heat map comprises colored bands (red, green, yellow) representative of a degree of relevance, where the degree of relevance indicates deviation from the predetermined optimal angle, or exclusion areas). This method ensures optimal attachment placement to enact a planned orthodontic treatment, thus improving aligner retentiveness to apply the desired force system (refer to col. 11, lines 57-61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method (100) of Morton with the method (1000) of Raslambekov, to optimally enact a planned orthodontic treatment (refer to col. 11, lines 57-61), thus improving aligner retentiveness.
Regarding claim 2, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the method of claim 1, Morton is silent to outputting one or more attachment locations on the patient's dentition based on the retention values.
Raslambekov further discloses outputting one or more attachment locations on the patient's dentition based on the retention values (degrees of relevance) (1040) (refer to col. 27, lines 18-28; the coupling point for the attachment is determined by considering the seventh excluded area). This attachment location is based on an optimal area for placing the attachment for eliciting the modeled forces (refer to refer to col. 11, lines 57-61, col. 27, lines 47-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modified the combined method of Morton and Raslambekov to place an attachment on an optimal area for eliciting the modeled forces (refer to col. 11, lines 57-61, col. 27, lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 3, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the method of claim 1; Morton further discloses wherein the 3D model of the dentition corresponds to the detention at initiation of the stage of the treatment plan (refer to Paragraph [0079], [0092]; the input data 404 includes the initial tooth positions for the current path segment; one such initial position is a digital data set that represents the initial (pretreatment) arrangement of the patient's teeth).
Regarding claim 4, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the method of claim 1; Morton further discloses wherein the treatment plan includes multiple stages for moving teeth of the dentition toward a final position, wherein each of the multiple stages is associated with a corresponding aligner (refer to Paragraph [0085]; clinically acceptable appliance configurations are calculated (step 170); each appliance configuration represents a step along the treatment path for the patient).
Regarding claim 5, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the method of claim 4; Morton further discloses repeating the steps of initializing (404), generating , simulation (process 400) (refer to Paragraphs [0087], [0092], Figs. 10B, 12; process 400 calculates the shape of the candidate aligner for each treatment path segment based on digital models of the teeth in a beginning position for each stage, iterating through the identified movable teeth in the model), and outputting (step 652) for each of a plurality of aligners of the different stages of the treatment plan (refer to Paragraph [0101], Fig. 14; process 600 iterates through the series of aligners).
Regarding claim 6, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the method of claim 1;
Morton further discloses wherein generating the plurality of zones comprises:
dividing the 3D model into zones each having one or more teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0080], [0092], [0094]; data structures that digitally represent individual tooth crowns are produced, where each individual tooth identified as movable is a zone); and
Morton is silent to wherein the retention value of each zone is based on an average retention value for the one or more teeth in the corresponding zone.
Raslambekov further discloses normalizing gradients within each heat map describing the retention value of each zone (degree of relevance) (refer to col. 2, lines 44-46), which is analogous to basing each of the retention values on an average value, as the process of normalizing data by definition includes adjusting each individual value by subtracting the average value (https://www.datacamp.com/tutorial/normalization-vs-standardization).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method (100) of Morton with retention values based on an average as taught by Raslambekov, as this is a demonstrated method of indicating attachment placement, the same function of the method (100) of Morton (refer to Paragraph [0063]) and Applicant (see Paragraph [0009] of specification).
Regarding claim 7, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the method of claim 6;
Morton is silent to wherein simulating the retention value comprises: determining a reference vector parallel to a long axis of a tooth; determining the surface normal vectors distributed across a surface of the tooth and normal to the surface of the tooth; and calculating angles between the reference vector and each of the surface normal vectors.
Raslambekov further discloses wherein simulating the retention value (degree of relevance) comprises:
determining a reference vector parallel to a long axis of a tooth (refer to col. 23, lines 35-40, Figs. 6-7; the method 1000 may further comprise determining the tooth axis 1560/120; by definition, all collinear lines are also parallel (https://www.ck12.org/flexi/cbse-math/vectors/differentiate-between-collinear-and-parallel-vectors./));
determining the surface normal vectors distributed across a surface of the tooth and normal to the surface of the tooth (refer to col. 4, lines 25-26; the method includes obtaining a normal axis of each vector of the mesh of the given tooth); and
calculating angles between the reference vector and each of the surface normal vectors (Refer to col. 26, lines 47-51; the method 1000 determines for each vector of the given tooth an angle between (i) a normal axis of the vector of the mesh of the given tooth, and (ii) a tooth axis of the given tooth).
Regarding claim 8, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the method of claim 1; Morton is silent to wherein simulating the retention value of the zones is based on a number of angles greater than 90 degrees.
Raslambekov further discloses wherein simulating the retention value of the zones (degrees of relevance) is based on a number of angles outside of a predetermined angle of 90 degrees (refer to col. 26, lines 47-53; if the determined angle for each surface vector of a given tooth or zone is outside of a predetermined angle, such as 90°, that given vector is considered to be part of the seventh excluded area). This ensures optimal positioning of the attachment (refer to col. 28, lines 10-16).
Although Raslambekov does not explicitly disclose a number of angles greater than 90 degrees, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined method of Morton and Raslambekov with the method of simulating the retention value of the zones (degrees of relevance) is based on a number of angles greater than 90 degrees as taught by Raslambekov in order to ensure optimal positioning of the attachment (refer to col. 28, lines 10-16).
Regarding claim 9, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the method of claim 1; Morton further discloses determining a shape and size of one or more retention-enhancing attachments at the one or more attachment locations (Refer to Paragraphs [0061], [0125]; attachment parameter values, including shape and sizing can be selected or modified for engagement or grip).
Regarding claim 10, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the method of claim 1; Morton further discloses:
adding one or more retention- enhancing attachments at the one or more attachment locations to the stage of the treatment plan (step 640) (Refer to Paragraphs [0103], [0125]; attachments designed to provide the most suitable engagement or grip are added as hardware); and
modifying the treatment plan based on the addition of the one or more retention-enhancing attachments (refer to Paragraph [0103], Fig. 14; when hardware is added to the model, the outer loop of the process 600 is executed again (step 642)).
Regarding claim 11, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the method of claim 1; Morton further discloses fabricating one or more dental aligners based on the modified treatment plan (step 180) (refer to Paragraphs [0086], [0120]; having calculated appliance definitions (process 600), the process 100 can proceed to the manufacturing step (step 180) in which appliances defined by the process are manufactured, including modified or optimizing dental appliances).
Regarding claim 12, Morton discloses a non-transient, computer-readable medium containing program instructions for modifying a treatment plan based on one or more estimates of retentiveness of a dental aligner (refer to Paragraphs [0103], [0110]-[0111], [0168]; storage devices suitable for tangibly embodying computer program instructions and data include all forms of nonvolatile memory; appliance geometry and attachment parameters are improved in an iterative design process, by considering each feature and its effect on the appliance geometry and surfaces of contact, equivalent to estimating the aligner’s engagement or retentiveness) the program instructions causing a processor (refer to Paragraph [0168]; a processor will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory and/or a random access memory) to:
initialize a 3D model of a patient's dentition based on a stage of a treatment plan corresponding to the dental aligner (step 420) (refer to Paragraphs [0087], [0092]; processes 200 and 400 are subprocesses of the method (100); the input data 404 includes the initial tooth positions for the current path segment);
generate a plurality of zones, each having one or more teeth from the 3D model of the patient's dentition (refer to Paragraphs [0080], [0092], [0094]; data structures that digitally represent individual tooth crowns are produced, where each individual tooth identified as movable is a zone);
simulate the dental aligner for each of the zones (process 400) (refer to Paragraphs [0092], [0094], Fig. 12; the process iterates over the movable teeth in the model, calculating the shape of the aligner for the current tooth); and
output one or more indicators of the probability that the dental aligner will improperly fit the patient's dentition (step 652) (refer to Paragraphs [0087], [0104], [0101]; Examiner understands “an improperly fitting aligner”, as an aligner that does not affect the desired force on the patient’s dentition to position the teeth to the desired final position; process 600 is a subprocess of the method (100); at the computation of additional hardware (step 640) and other additional steps, the process can interact with a human operator, such as a clinician or technician, to request assistance (step 652) based on remaining unacceptable aligners, equating to an indicator; an unacceptable aligner is an aligner shape where an acceptable end position of the teeth is not reached; as the function of an aligner is to apply force to reposition teeth, failing to successfully reposition the teeth is analogous to an improperly fitting aligner).
Morton is silent to simulating a retention value for each of the zones, based on one or more angles between one or more surface normal vectors of one or more teeth within each zone, and one or more reference vectors parallel to a long axis of each of the one or more teeth within each zone; and outputting one or more indicators of the probability that the dental aligner will improperly fit the patient's dentition based on the retention values.
Raslambekov discloses a method (1000) executed by computer readable medium of determining a coupling point for an attachment on a subject’s tooth in the same field of endeavor (refer to col. 15, lines 22-28, col. 16, lines 65-68, Fig. 11). The method (100) includes generating a plurality of zones, each having one or more teeth from the 3D model of the patient's dentition (refer to col. 16, lines 15-28; each tooth of the lower teeth 16 is segmented to obtain a plurality of segmented crown portions or zones) and simulating a retention value (degree of relevance) for each of the zones, based on one or more angles between one or more surface normal vectors of one or more teeth within each zone, and one or more reference vectors parallel to a long axis of each of the one or more teeth within each zone (1030) (refer to col. 12, lines 2-4, col. 26, lines 34-46, col. 27, lines 1-7, Fig. 6; for each location on a given tooth or zone, an angle difference of a normal axis with the tooth axis is determined; the degree of relevance is based on how far the determined angle deviates from the predetermined angle value; by definition, all collinear lines are also parallel (https://www.ck12.org/flexi/cbse-math/vectors/differentiate-between-collinear-and-parallel-vectors./), thus the determined tooth axis is parallel to a long axis of the tooth), and outputting one or more indicators based on the retention values (degrees of relevance) (1030) (refer to col. 7, lines 50-55, col. 26, lines 32-46, col. 27, lines 54-59; Examiner understands “retention value” as a value which describes the ability of the aligner to engage the patient’s teeth and thus, apply the required forces for repositioning; the degree of relevance indicates where positioning an attachment will result in optimization of applied forces, thus also indicating aligner engagement or retentiveness ; the heat map comprises colored bands (red, green, yellow) representative of a degree of relevance, where the degree of relevance indicates deviation from the predetermined optimal angle, or exclusion areas). This method ensures optimal attachment placement to enact a planned orthodontic treatment, thus improving aligner retentiveness to apply the desired force system (refer to col. 11, lines 57-61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method (100) of Morton with the method (1000) of Raslambekov, to optimally enact a planned orthodontic treatment (refer to col. 11, lines 57-61), thus improving aligner retentiveness.
Regarding claim 13, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the non-transient computer-readable medium of claim 12; Morton is silent to wherein the instructions further cause the processor to output one or more attachment locations on the patient's dentition based on the retention values.
Raslambekov further discloses outputting one or more attachment locations on the patient's dentition based on the retention values (degrees of relevance) (1040) (refer to col. 27, lines 18-28; the coupling point for the attachment is determined by considering the seventh excluded area). This attachment location is based on an optimal area for placing the attachment for eliciting the modeled forces (refer to refer to col. 11, lines 57-61, col. 27, lines 47-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modified the combined method of Morton and Raslambekov to place an attachment on an optimal area for eliciting the modeled forces (refer to refer to col. 11, lines 57-61, col. 27, lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 14, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the non-transient computer-readable medium of claim 12;
Morton further discloses wherein generating the plurality of zones comprises:
dividing the 3D model into zones each having one or more teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0080], [0092], [0094]; data structures that digitally represent individual tooth crowns are produced, where each individual tooth identified as movable is a zone); and
Morton is silent to wherein the retention value of each zone is based on an average retention value for the one or more teeth in the corresponding zone.
Raslambekov further discloses normalizing gradients within each heat map describing the retention value of each zone (degree of relevance) (refer to col. 2, lines 44-46), which is analogous to basing each of the retention values on an average value, as the process of normalizing data by definition includes adjusting each individual value by subtracting the average value (https://www.datacamp.com/tutorial/normalization-vs-standardization).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method (100) of Morton with retention values based on an average as taught by Raslambekov, as this is a demonstrated method of indicating attachment placement, the same function of the method (100) of Morton (refer to Paragraph [0063]) and Applicant (see Paragraph [0009] of specification).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the non-transient computer-readable medium of claim 12;
Morton is silent to wherein simulating the retention value of the zones is based on a number of angles greater than 90 degrees.
Raslambekov further discloses wherein simulating the retention value of the zones (degrees of relevance) is based on a number of angles outside of a predetermined angle of 90 degrees (refer to col. 26, lines 47-53; if the determined angle for each surface vector of a given tooth or zone is outside of a predetermined angle, such as 90°, that given vector is considered to be part of the seventh excluded area). This ensures optimal positioning of the attachment (refer to col. 28, lines 10-16).
Although Raslambekov does not explicitly disclose a number of angles greater than 90 degrees, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined method of Morton and Raslambekov with the method of simulating the retention value of the zones (degrees of relevance) based on a number of angles greater than 90 degrees as taught by Raslambekov in order to ensure optimal positioning of the attachment (refer to col. 28, lines 10-16).
Regarding claim 16, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the non-transient computer-readable medium of claim 12;
Morton is silent to wherein simulating the retention value comprises: determining a reference vector parallel to a long axis of a tooth ;determining the surface normal vectors distributed across a surface of the tooth and normal to the surface of the tooth; and calculating angles between the reference vector and each of the surface normal vectors.
Raslambekov further discloses wherein simulating the retention value (degree of relevance) comprises:
determining a reference vector parallel to a long axis of a tooth (refer to col. 23, lines 35-40, Figs. 6-7; the method 1000 may further comprise determining the tooth axis 1560/120; by definition, all collinear lines are also parallel (https://www.ck12.org/flexi/cbse-math/vectors/differentiate-between-collinear-and-parallel-vectors./));
determining the surface normal vectors distributed across a surface of the tooth and normal to the surface of the tooth (refer to col. 4, lines 25-26; the method includes obtaining a normal axis of each vector of the mesh of the given tooth); and
calculating angles between the reference vector and each of the surface normal vectors (refer to col. 26, lines 47-51; the method 1000 determines for each vector of the given tooth an angle between (i) a normal axis of the vector of the mesh of the given tooth, and (ii) a tooth axis of the given tooth).
Regarding claim 18, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the non-transient computer-readable medium of claim 12; Morton further discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine a shape and size of one or more retention- enhancing attachments at the one or more attachment locations (refer to Paragraphs [0061], [0125]; attachment parameter values, including shape and sizing can be selected or modified for engagement or grip).
Regarding claim 19, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the non-transient computer-readable medium of claim 12; Morton further discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to add one or more retention- enhancing attachments at the one or more attachment locations to the stage of the treatment plan (step 640) (refer to Paragraphs [0103], [0125]; attachments designed to provide the most suitable engagement or grip are added as hardware ; and
modify the treatment plan based on the addition of the one or more retention-enhancing attachments (refer to Paragraph [0103], Fig. 14; when hardware is added to the model, the outer loop of the process 600 is executed again (step 642)).
Regarding claim 20, Morton and Raslambekov disclose the non-transient computer-readable medium of claim 12; Morton is silent to wherein each surface normal vector is associated with a polygon of a surface mesh of the tooth, and wherein the simulated retention value is further based on a direction of each of the angles between the reference vector and corresponding surface normal vector.
Raslambekov further discloses wherein each surface normal vector is associated with a polygon of a surface mesh of the tooth (refer to col. 4, lines 25-26; the method includes obtaining a normal axis of each vector of the mesh of the given tooth; by definition, a 3D mesh consists of polygons (https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/3D-mesh)), and wherein the simulated retention value (degree of relevance) is further based on a direction of each of the angles between the reference vector and corresponding surface normal vector (refer to col. 26, lines 25-46; bands are representative of a degree of relevance; the first band 1820 indicates the angle between the normal axis and the tooth axis is less than 90° by a relatively large amount, the third band 1840, indicates the angle between the normal axis and the tooth axis is less than 90° by a relatively small amount, and the second band 1830 indicates a region of medium relevance). This ensures optimal positioning of the attachment by indicating the level of “severity” of the exclusion area (refer to col. 28, lines 10-16).
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined method of Morton and Raslambekov with the method of simulating the retention value of the zones (degrees of relevance) based on a number of angles greater than 90 degrees, as taught by Raslambekov in order to ensure optimal positioning of the attachment (refer to col. 28, lines 10-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined method of Morton and Raslambekov with the method of simulating the retention value (degree of relevance) as taught by Raslambekov in order to ensure optimal positioning of the attachment (refer to col. 28, lines 10-16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-7:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights