DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claimed invention is not patent eligible subject matter by identifying what the claims are directed to and explain why it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), e.g. the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are directed to a computer-implemented method including a series of steps that uses the term “determining” in which it is considered to be data gathering, the term “identifying” in which is it considered data organization, and the terms “performing” and fabricating” that can be considered as output signals and or mental thoughts. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed invention does not include a least a step including physical output that is significantly more than indicating “fabricating at least a first dental appliance”. On the other hand, the combination of claims 1 with 3 and 11 with 13, are not considered an abstract idea; by including a description of what the step of “fabricating” includes, in which it is considered significantly more than the mere word of “fabricating”. Therefore, it is considered that the claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are directed to an abstract idea of a computer-implemented method of data gathering, data organization and output signals and or mental thoughts, in which "is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity [792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640; In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the use of the language “determining a respective distance” is indefinite. It is not understood if said “respective distance” refers to the step “determining a respective distance” in line 5 of claim 1, or if this is another step different from the step of claim 1. For examination purposes the language will be interpreted as been the same as the step described in line 5 of claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3 uses the term “wither”. The Office understands that said term has a typographical error, where it should read “whether”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-6 and 11-17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Chishti et al. (US 20040137400 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (Avoid or not a collision)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Identifying a collision)]
PNG
media_image1.png
752
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chishti et al. disclose a computer-implemented method including:
determining a schedule of movement for dental objects during treatment stages of a dental treatment, wherein the schedule of movement indicates whether or not each of the dental objects moves during each of the treatment stages (see [0012]-[0013] – where the method includes the generation of a treatment plan that includes determining for one or more tooth movements/paths based on the selected tooth treatment pattern; the generation of the treatment plant includes specifying a series of treatment stages for the one or more teeth; and [0149] – where the system plan is in accordance to a library of movements for every given initial position of patient teeth and a final corrected position, and where the system generates in-between stages in accordance of the selected movement; where movement patters are named as X-type movement, an A-type movement, a V-type movement, and an XX-type movement; [0151]-[0152] – where in Fig. 11-13 show the A, V and XX type movements, where the schedule of movement indicates which dental object moves or not in each treatment stage);
determining a respective distance each of the dental objects moves between their respective initial position and respective final position for the dental treatment (see [0021] – “The treatment paths can include determining the minimum amount of transformation required to move each tooth from the initial position to the final position and creating each treatment path to require only the minimum amount of movement”; therefore, if it is determined the minimum amount of transformation from the initial position to the final position of each dental object in a teeth movement, the respective distance is calculated);
determining a rate each respective dental object moves during the dental treatment (see [0013] – “The method can include dividing a path for one or more teeth into the series of stages while keeping the movement of teeth in each stage below a predetermined range”, and [0021] – “the teeth can be … incrementally moved in one or more stages (per stage), each stage moving each tooth approximately 0.2 mm to approximately 0.4 mm. The constraints can be stored in an array with one dimension of the array identifying each stage in the teeth movement”);
determining a total number of stages for the dental treatment based on the respective distance and the respective rate of each of the dental objects (see [0021] – “The treatment paths can include determining the minimum amount of transformation required to move each tooth from the initial position to the final position and creating each treatment path to require only the minimum amount of movement”; therefore, it is understood that minimum amount of movement means the total number of stages);
identifying a collision (314) between a first of the dental objects and a second of the dental objects based at least on the schedule of movement of the dental objects and the respective locations of first and second dental objects during at least a first treatment stage (see annotated Fig. 5 above and [0021] – “a set of rules can be applied to detect any collisions that will occur as the patient's teeth move along the treatment paths”; due to the detection of collisions occurs along the treatment path, it is understood that it includes at least the first treatment stage);
performing a first modification (316) of the schedule of movement in response to the identifying (see Fig. 5 above and [0120] – “If a collision occurs, a "push" vector is created to shift the path of the planned movement (step 315); Based on the push vector, the current tooth "bounces" from the collision and a new tooth movement is generated (step 316)”);
determining that the first modification does not avoid a collision between the first of the dental objects and the second of the dental objects; performing a second modification of the schedule of movement after the determining that the first modification does not avoid a collision (see Fig. 5 above – where the method provides a close loop verification routine to verify if a collision is avoided or not between two dental objects, and if not it will create a push vector 315 until the collision is avoided; it is understood that the method is capable of performing the first medication and the second modification as claimed); and
fabricating at least a first dental appliance based on the schedule of movement after performing the second modification (see [0013] – “The method can include generating an appliance for each treatment stage”; and [0014] – “Implementations of this aspect may include generating an appliance for each tooth arrangement.”).
Regarding claim 2, Chishti et al. disclose that the first modification of the schedule of movement and the second modification of the schedule of movement includes modifying whether or not at least one of the dental objects move during at least one of the treatment stages (see Fig. 5 above and [0120] – “If a collision occurs, a "push" vector is created to shift the path of the planned movement (step 315); Based on the push vector, the current tooth "bounces" from the collision and a new tooth movement is generated (step 316)”; therefore, if a collision is identified between dental objects, the method provides the push vector to modify the objects move during at least one of the treatment stage).
Regarding claim 3, Chishti et al. disclose that the fabricating at least a first dental appliance includes:
fabricating a positive mold of the dental objects (see [0016 – “code to fabricate appliances can include code to control a fabrication machine to produce successive positive models of the tooth arrangements”); and
thermoforming an orthodontic aligner over each respective positive mold (see [0054] – “the polymeric appliance 111 of FIG. 2C may be formed from a thin sheet of a suitable elastomeric polymer, such as Tru Tain 0.03 in, thermal forming dental material”; therefore, if it is used thermal forming dental material, the process used to form the appliance is thermoforming).
Regarding claim 4, Chishti et al. disclose that the schedule of movement is determined by selection by a user (see [0021] – “More than one candidate treatment path for each tooth can be generated and graphically displayed for each candidate treatment path to a human user for selection”).
PNG
media_image2.png
548
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
456
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Chishti et al. disclose that the schedule of movement includes one of one of an all-equal pattern (see [0178] – an alternative is a move pattern that has an equal movement in the first phase of the movement), a A-shaped pattern (see Fig. 11 above), or a V-shaped pattern (see Fig. 12 above) (see [0013] – “For the equal equal pattern, the method includes dividing the teeth into a prestage movement group and a post stage movement group; and applying the all equal movement to the prestage movement group and subsequently applying the all equal movement to the prestage movement group. For the A-shaped movement pattern, the method includes sequentially moving each tooth from an incisor tooth toward a molar tooth. For the V-shaped movement pattern, the method includes sequentially moving each tooth from a molar tooth toward an incisor tooth.”).
Regarding claim 6, Chishti et al. disclose that the determining the schedule of movement includes analyzing, by a computer processor (502), the dental objects in their respective initial positions and respective final positions (see [0192] – “Data processing system 500 typically includes at least one processor 502”).
Regarding claim 7, Chishti et al. disclose that the determining a respective distance each of the dental objects moves between their respective initial position and respective final position for the dental treatment is based on a location of each of the respective dental objects during each of the treatment stages (see [0021] – “The treatment paths can include determining the minimum amount of transformation required to move each tooth from the initial position to the final position and creating each treatment path to require only the minimum amount of movement”; and in Fig. 5 above – where the method provides a close loop verification routine to verify if a collision is avoided or not between two dental objects, and if not it will create a push vector 315 until the collision is avoided”; therefore, if the distance is determined based on the treatment path, and verification of collisions is performed during each stage, the respective distance of each object moves is based on the location along the path).
Regarding claim 11, Chishti et al. disclose a computer-implemented method including:
determining a schedule of movement for dental objects during treatment stages, wherein the schedule of movement indicates whether or not each of the dental objects moves during each of the treatment stages (see [0012]-[0013] – where the method includes the generation of a treatment plan that includes determining for one or more tooth movements/paths based on the selected tooth treatment pattern; the generation of the treatment plant includes specifying a series of treatment stages for the one or more teeth; and [0149] – where the system plan is in accordance to a library of movements for every given initial position of patient teeth and a final corrected position, and where the system generates in-between stages in accordance of the selected movement; where movement patters are named as X-type movement, an A-type movement, a V-type movement, and an XX-type movement; [0151]-[0152] – where in Fig. 11-13 show the A, V and XX type movements, where the schedule of movement indicates which dental object moves or not in each treatment stage);
determining a total number of stages for the dental treatment based on the schedule of movement a respective distance each of the dental objects moves during the treatment and the respective rate each of the dental objects moves during the treatment (see [0021] – “The treatment paths can include determining the minimum amount of transformation required to move each tooth from the initial position to the final position and creating each treatment path to require only the minimum amount of movement”; therefore, it is understood that minimum amount of movement means the total number of stages);
performing a first modification (316) to the schedule of movement to avoid a collision (314) between two or more of the dental objects on their respective routes (see Fig. 5 above and [0120] – “If a collision occurs, a "push" vector is created to shift the path of the planned movement (step 315). Based on the push vector, the current tooth "bounces" from the collision and a new tooth movement is generated (step 316)”);
determining that the first modification (316) does not avoid the collision or obstruction between the two or more dental objects; performing a second modification of the schedule of movement after determining that the first modification does not avoid the collision (see Fig. 5 above – where the method provides a close loop verification routine to verify if a collision is avoided or not between two dental objects, and if not it will create a push vector 315 until the collision is avoided; it is understood that the method is capable of performing the first medication and the second modification as claimed); and
fabricating at least a first dental appliance based on the schedule of movement after performing the second modification (see [0013] – “The method can include generating an appliance for each treatment stage”; and [0014] – “Implementations of this aspect may include generating an appliance for each tooth arrangement.”).
Regarding claim 12, Chishti et al. disclose that the first modification of the schedule of movement and the second modification of the schedule of movement includes modifying whether or not at least one of the dental objects move during at least one of the treatment stages (see Fig. 5 above and [0120] – “If a collision occurs, a "push" vector is created to shift the path of the planned movement (step 315); Based on the push vector, the current tooth "bounces" from the collision and a new tooth movement is generated (step 316)”; therefore, if a collision is identified between dental objects, the method provides the push vector to modify the objects move during at least one of the treatment stage).
Regarding claim 13, Chishti et al. disclose that the fabricating at least a first dental appliance includes: fabricating a positive mold of the dental objects ((see [0016 – “code to fabricate appliances can include code to control a fabrication machine to produce successive positive models of the tooth arrangements”); and thermoforming an orthodontic aligner over each respective positive mold (see [0054] – “the polymeric appliance 111 of FIG. 2C may be formed from a thin sheet of a suitable elastomeric polymer, such as Tru Tain 0.03 in, thermal forming dental material”; therefore, if it is used thermal forming dental material, the process used to form the appliance is thermoforming).
Regarding claim 14, Chishti et al. disclose that the schedule of movement is determined by selection by a user (see [0021] – “More than one candidate treatment path for each tooth can be generated and graphically displayed for each candidate treatment path to a human user for selection”).
Regarding claim 15, Chishti et al. disclose that the schedule of movement includes one of one of an all-equal pattern (see [0178] – an alternative is a move pattern that has an equal movement in the first phase of the movement), a A-shaped pattern (see Fig. 11 above), or a V-shaped pattern (see Fig. 12 above) (see [0013] – “For the equal equal pattern, the method includes dividing the teeth into a prestage movement group and a post stage movement group; and applying the all equal movement to the prestage movement group and subsequently applying the all equal movement to the prestage movement group. For the A-shaped movement pattern, the method includes sequentially moving each tooth from an incisor tooth toward a molar tooth. For the V-shaped movement pattern, the method includes sequentially moving each tooth from a molar tooth toward an incisor tooth.”).
Regarding claim 16, Chishti et al. disclose that the determining the schedule of movement includes analyzing, by a computer processor (502), the dental objects in their respective initial positions and respective final positions (see [0192] – “Data processing system 500 typically includes at least one processor 502”).
Regarding claim 17, Chishti et al. disclose further including determining, after performing a second modification to the schedule of movement, based on the schedule of movement a respective distance each of the dental objects moves during the treatment and the respective rate each of the dental objects moves during the treatment (see [0021] – “see [0021] – “The treatment paths can include determining the minimum amount of transformation required to move each tooth from the initial position to the final position and creating each treatment path to require only the minimum amount of movement”; where each stage move of the tooth is approximately 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm; therefore; therefore, it is understood that the minimum amount of movement means the total number of stages, and due to the amount of the approximate movement is known, the rate at which the dental object moves can be determined).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAYDA ARLENE APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/MIRAYDA A APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772