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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 4, “reposition step” should be “repositioning step”.
Paragraph 4, "the initial tooth arrangement: There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim., it should read an “an initial tooth arrangement”.
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 1-7, 9-15 and 19-28 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 of generating designs of shell-shaped tooth repositioners, which falls into the category of a process.
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 “calculating whether the reference designs of the series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners are able to achieve corresponding repositioning targets” and “modifying geometry of a corresponding part of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner” are mental processes and mathematical concepts. An orthodontist can visually observe a patient’s dentition to with an aligner determine if the aligner will result in the required movements. Further, an orthodontist can modify the aligner geometry based on this observation.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, and 9-15, the design and modification of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner geometry is further defined. These claims also fall into the category of abstract ideas capable of being performed in the human mind.
Regarding claim 19, the steps of “calculating a force system” and “modifying the reference design based on the reference force system and the ideal force system” are mental processes and mathematical concepts. An orthodontist is capable of calculating a force system based on desired tooth movement and modifying the aligner if the force system does not result in the desired movement.
Regarding dependent claims 20-28, the design and modification of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner geometry is further defined. These claims also fall into the category of abstract ideas capable of being performed in the human mind.
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 1-7, 9-15 and 19-28, 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)). Adding that these steps are computer implemented is insignificant extra solution activity and does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood and conventional. For at least these reasons and as claims 1-7, 9-15 and 19-28 do not recite additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the abstract mental processes and mathematical concepts identified for claims 1-7, 9-15 and 19-28 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 1-7, 9-15 and 19-28, 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. The claimed steps of calculating force systems and movement paths, and modifying the shell-shaped tooth repositioner 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 ( “calculating", “modifying”) 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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-10, and 12-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matov et al. (US 20130230818 A1), herein referred to as Matov.
Regarding claim 1, Matov discloses a computer-implemented method (100) of generating designs of shell-shaped tooth repositioners (refer to Paragraph [0095], Fig. 2A), the method (100) comprising:
obtaining an orthodontic treatment plan comprising a series of successive repositioning steps whose repositioning targets are successive tooth arrangements including a first intermediate tooth arrangement, [[…]] through a final intermediate tooth arrangement and a target tooth arrangement (150; refer to Paragraphs [0098]-[0100], [0102], Fig. 2A; at step 150, the segmented paths for moving a patient’s dental arch from an initial arrangement to a final or target arrangement are defined, where the collection of these segmented paths form the treatment path or plan; the segmented paths each have a defined end point for positions of the teeth that is equivalent to an intermediate tooth arrangement);
obtaining reference designs of a series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners corresponding to the series of successive repositioning steps (170; refer to Paragraph [0102], Fig. 2A; at step 170, appliance configurations, or reference designs, are calculated based on the segmented tooth paths and tooth position data);
calculating, for each successive reposition step, an ideal force system for repositioning the teeth from the initial tooth arrangement to the target arrangement of the step (150; refer to Paragraphs [0099], [0100], [0109]; the initial treatment path to move the teeth from an initial to a final desired arrangement is based on default values of the threshold limits of linear and rotational translation which correlate to the maximum allowable force for each tooth);
calculating, for each successive repositioning step, a reference force system applied by the shell-shaped tooth repositioner of the reference design when worn on the teeth under the initial tooth arrangement (210; refer to Paragraphs [0104],[0106], [0109], Figs. 2B, 3, 4; a model aligner for each step of the treatment plan is deformed over the teeth, computing the maximum linear and torsional force applied to each tooth, which equates to the reference force system);
calculating, based on the reference force system, whether the reference designs of the series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners are able to achieve corresponding repositioning targets (230; refer to Paragraph [0104], Fig. 2B; step 230 of a subprocess (200) of step 170 calculates whether the model appliance for that step of the treatment plan achieves the required end position); and
if a reference design of a shell-shaped tooth repositioner of a repositioning step is not able to achieve the repositioning target of the repositioning step, modifying, based on the ideal force system and reference force system, geometry of a corresponding part of the reference design of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner of the repositioning step, to improve force application of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner to obtain an optimized design of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner of this repositioning step (450; refer to Paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0109], [0111], Figs. 2B, 4; in step 240, if an acceptable end position for the teeth is not reached, the process calculates a new aligner shape; the process (400) of calculating this shape accepts the reference force system from the finite element analysis (FEA) of the in place aligner (402) and the ideal force system from the calculated path (404) to compute the aligner shape change for the specific tooth region when the end point is not reached (450); the purpose of the appliance calculation process (170) is to evaluate whether the forces generated by the appliance will result in the necessary tooth repositioning, by recalculating and modifying the appliances to reach this end position with an iterative process, the appliance design and force applied by the appliance to the teeth are both optimized).
Regarding claim 2, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 1, wherein the reference designs of the series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners are directly generated based on the geometries of the repositioning targets of the series of successive repositioning steps respectively (refer to Paragraphs [0099], [0100], [0102], Fig. 2A; each appliance configuration represents a step along the treatment path, where each step is based on the segmented paths with defined end points corresponding to the repositioning targets).
Regarding claim 3, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 2, wherein the geometries of the reference designs of the series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners match the repositioning targets of the series of successive repositioning steps respectively (refer to Paragraphs [0099], [0100], [0102], Fig. 2A; based on Applicant’s disclosure, Examiner understands the “match” of the shell shaped tooth repositioners and repositioning targets as the initial design of the shell-shaped repositioner prior to any modifications from the iterative process (refer to Paragraph [0048]); the initial designs of each appliance configuration match the end points, or sequence of tooth positions calculated based on an initial and final desired tooth arrangement, where end points of each segment correspond to an intermediate arrangement; therefore, the reference designs match the repositioning targets).
Regarding claim 4, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 1, wherein the optimized design of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner differs from the corresponding reference design in geometry only (490; refer to Paragraphs [0104], [0109] and Fig. 4; the process of calculating the optimized design includes defining a new shape or geometry).
Regarding claim 7, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 1, wherein each of the shell-shaped tooth repositioners (2560) forms a cavity for receiving a plurality of teeth and an accessory (2250) attached to the surface of a tooth (refer to Paragraph [0194] and annotated Fig. 29 below), a part thereof for receiving a single tooth is referred to as a tooth cavity of the tooth (refer to annotated Fig. 29 below; the tooth is shown in a cavity of an aligner), a part thereof receiving an accessory is referred to as an accessory cavity of the accessory (refer to Paragraph [0194], annotated Fig. 29 below; the shaped aligner (2560) is designed to fit the attachment (2550)), and the optimized design of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner allows partial overlap of a tooth cavity and an accessory cavity (refer to Paragraph [0194], annotated Fig. 29 below; the tooth cavity and accessory cavity are shown overlapping; further, the aligner (2560) is designed to apply forces to both the tooth surface and attachment (2550), requiring an overlap of the cavities).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8-Canceled
Regarding claim 9, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 1
calculating an optimized force system based on a given condition by taking the ideal force system as a target
modifying the reference design according to a difference between the reference force system and the optimized force system to obtain the optimized design (refer to Paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0109], Fig. 4; the updated threshold limits of maximum force for each tooth are used to recalculate the paths in step 150, with these now updated paths and updated maximum forces being used as inputs (404) for modifying the reference design (400) to obtain an optimized aligner shape (490)).
Regarding claim 10, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 9 further comprising:
according to a user instruction, presenting one of the following of a selected repositioning step on a user interface (refer to Paragraphs [0121], [0229]; the process can interact with a human operator during alterations to the motion path of a tooth, with this interaction being provided through a graphical user interface):
a compensatory force system, a compensatory design amount, an equivalent compensatory design amount and any combinations thereof, wherein a compensatory force system is a difference between the the (refer to Paragraphs [0135]-[0137], Figs. 11B-11C below; a reference force system is shown in Fig. 11B based on an initial tooth position, desired movement and a dental appliance; Fig. 11C shows a relief, the compensatory design amount, based on the optimized aligner shape geometry, where the optimized geometry is based on the calculated optimal forces to counteract the undesirable forces of the reference force system).
PNG
media_image2.png
322
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
329
453
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 9, wherein the given condition comprises:
a maximum load of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner calculated based on a given material and thickness of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner (refer to Paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0109], Fig. 4; the maximum linear and torsional forces, or loads, from the FEA model are calculated based on the aligner material and shape (304), wherein the shape of the aligner includes the thickness).
Regarding claim 13, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 1 a force system is a sum of a static force and a static torque (refer to Paragraph [0135], annotated Fig. 11B below; a reference force system is shown based on an initial tooth position with a positioned dental appliance; the force vector represents a sum of the static force (x-direction) and static torque (z-direction)).
PNG
media_image4.png
322
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 1 further comprising:
obtaining a 3D digital model representing the patient's initial tooth arrangement and a diagnosis provided by a dentist (110, 130; refer to Paragraph [0096], Fig. 2A; a digital data set of the initial arrangement of the patient’s teeth is provided; the dentist creates a prescription which inherently requires diagnosing the condition of the teeth);
generating the orthodontic treatment plan based on the 3D digital model representing the patient's initial tooth arrangement and the diagnosis (150; refer to Paragraph [0099], Fig. 2A; the process defined segmented tooth paths with defined end points after acquiring the model and prescription) and
generating the reference designs of the series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners after obtaining the dentist's confirmation of the orthodontic treatment plan (170; refer to Paragraph [0102] and Fig. 2A; the segmented tooth paths are used to calculate the appliance configurations after interaction with the clinician (160)).
Regarding claim 15, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 1, wherein modifying the geometry of the corresponding part of the reference design of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner of the repositioning step comprises at least one
changing positional relationship between tooth cavities, changing the geometries of tooth cavities (refer to Paragraphs [0111]-[0112]; in steps 450 and 490, the aligner geometry is changed for individual tooth regions and over the entire aligner), adding a pressure point (refer to Paragraphs [0135]-[0137], annotated Fig. 11C above; a relief is added to the aligner), adding a local reinforcement structure (refer to Paragraph [0194], annotated Fig. 29 above; an attachment (2550) is added to the tooth’s crown surface (2501) with a corresponding ridge (2561) on the appliance), and any combination thereof, wherein the shell-shaped tooth repositioner forms a cavity for receiving a plurality of teeth, and a part thereof for receiving a single tooth is referred to as a tooth cavity of the tooth (refer to annotated Fig. 29 above; the aligner (2560) is shown receiving a tooth in a cavity).
Regarding claim 16, Matov discloses a shell-shaped tooth repositioner system (appliances of step 180), comprising:
a series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners for incrementally repositioning teeth from an initial tooth arrangement to a first intermediate tooth arrangement [[…]] through a final intermediate tooth arrangement until a target tooth arrangement (refer to Paragraph [0103]; appliances defined by the segmented paths are manufactured, wherein the segmented paths move a patient’s teeth from an initial tooth arrangement to a final tooth arrangement, and each segment has a defined end point for positions of the teeth that is equivalent to an intermediate tooth arrangement);
wherein the series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners are obtained by modifying corresponding reference designs of the series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners (refer to Paragraph [0104], Figs. 2B, 4; based on an initial aligner shape, a subprocess (400) modifies the aligner shape (490));
the modifications are based on differences between actual repositioning performances and desired repositioning performances of the reference designs of the series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners (refer to Paragraph [0109], Figs. 2B, 4; the subprocess for modifying the initial aligner shape (400) is based on inputs of the desired end tooth positions (404) and the actual end tooth positions (402)); and
the geometry of at least one of the series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners is different from that of the corresponding reference design (490; refer to Paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0109], Figs. 2A-2B, 4; in step 240, if an acceptable end position for the teeth is not reached, the process (400) computes a new aligner shape (490)),
wherein the reference designs of the series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners are directly generated based on the first intermediate tooth arrangement [[…]] through the final intermediate tooth arrangement and the target tooth arrangement, respectively (refer to Paragraphs [0099], [0100], [0102], Fig. 2A; each appliance configuration represents a step along the treatment path, where each step is based on the segmented paths with defined end points corresponding to the intermediate and final tooth arrangements),
the modifying being based on differences between an ideal force system calculated for each repositioning step and a reference force system calculated for each corresponding reference design (450; refer to Paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0109], [0111], Figs. 2B, 4; the aligner change (450) is computed based on the reference force system from the finite element analysis (FEA) of the in place aligner (402) and the ideal force system from the calculated path (404) for each aligner in the treatment plan; if the reference force system (402) is different from the ideal force system (404) in that the desired end position is not reached, or unacceptable motion dynamics occur, the an aligner change is computed for that region (450)).
Regarding claim 17, Matov discloses the shell-shaped tooth repositioner system (appliances of step 180) according to claim 16, wherein the geometries of the reference designs of the series of successive shell-shaped tooth repositioners matches the first intermediate tooth arrangement [[…]]through the final intermediate tooth arrangement and the target tooth arrangement, respectively (refer to Paragraphs [0099], [0100], [0102], Fig. 2A; based on Applicant’s disclosure, Examiner understands the “match” of the shell shaped tooth repositioners and repositioning targets as the initial design of the shell-shaped repositioner prior to any modifications from the iterative process (refer to Paragraph [0048]); the initial designs of each appliance configuration match the end points, or sequence of tooth positions calculated based on an initial and final desired tooth arrangement, where end points of each segment correspond to an intermediate arrangement; therefore, the reference designs match the repositioning targets),and
wherein at least one shell-shaped tooth repositioner includes a locally modified tooth-receiving cavity (refer to Paragraphs [0111]-[0112]; in step 450 the aligner geometry is changed for individual tooth regions), a pressure-applying point (refer to Paragraphs [0135]-[0137], annotated Fig. 11C above; a relief is added to the aligner), or a local reinforcing structure configured to apply forces based on differences between the ideal force system and the reference force system (refer to Paragraphs [0120], [0194], annotated Fig. 29 above; in computing the shape of a series of aligner (super-process 600), an attachment is added for impossible movements, which represent a difference between an ideal force system and the reference force system; an attachment (2550) is added to the tooth’s crown surface (2501) to achieve the desired tooth movement with a corresponding ridge (2561) on the appliance).
Regarding claim 18, Matov discloses the shell-shaped tooth repositioner system (appliances of step 180) according to claim 16, wherein the actual repositioning performances and the desired repositioning performances are expressed by static force systems (refer to Paragraphs [0104], [0109], Fig. 4; the finite element analysis (FEA) model represents the actual end positions of each tooth from a maximum linear and torsional force applied to each tooth, while the path from step 150 defines the desired end positions based on the maximum allowable force for each tooth).
Regarding claim 19, Matov discloses a computer-implemented method of generating designs of shell-shaped tooth repositioners (100), the method (100) comprising:
obtaining an initial tooth arrangement and a target tooth arrangement of a first repositioning step (refer to Paragraphs [0096], [0099], Fig. 2A; a digital data set representing the initial arrangement of the patient’s teeth is acquired in step 110; an end point of a segmented tooth path is defined in step 150, where the end point defines a target tooth arrangement for that path);
obtaining a reference design of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner of the first repositioning step (refer to Paragraph [0102]; in step 170, an appliance configuration is calculated based on the defined path in step 150) ;
calculating a reference force system applied on a patient's teeth when the shell-shaped tooth repositioner of the reference design is worn on the patient's teeth under the initial tooth arrangement, (refer to Paragraphs [0106], [0109], Figs. 3, 4; a finite element analysis (FEA) model of the combined initial tooth configuration and polymeric shell aligner is created, computing the maximum linear and torsional force applied to each tooth, which equates to the reference force system);
calculating, based on the initial tooth arrangement and the target tooth arrangement (refer to Paragraphs [0099], [0100], [0109]; the initial treatment path to move the teeth from an initial to a desired arrangement is based on default values of the threshold limits of linear and rotational translation which correlate to the maximum allowable force for each tooth); and
modifying the reference design based on the reference force system and the ideal force system to obtain an optimized design (refer to Paragraphs [0104], [0109], Figs. 2B, 4; the appliance calculation step (170) is implemented by two subprocesses (200, 400); in these processes an initial aligner shape, or reference design, is modified, wherein the inputs for the process of modifying the reference design are the forces from the FEA model (reference force system) and the forces from the initial path calculation (ideal force system)).
Regarding claim 20, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 19, wherein the reference design is directly generated based on the target tooth arrangement (refer to Paragraphs [0099], [0102]; in step 170, an appliance configuration is calculated based on the defined path and end point in step 150, where the end points represent a sequence of tooth positions).
Regarding claim 21, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 20, wherein a geometry of a cavity of the reference design for receiving teeth matches the target tooth arrangement (refer to Paragraphs [0099], [0102]; in step 170, an initial appliance configuration is calculated based on the defined path and end point in step 150, where the end point represents a sequence of tooth positions, therefore the geometry of the appliance also matches this sequence or arrangement of tooth positions).
Regarding claim 22, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 19 further comprising:
obtaining an initial tooth arrangement (110; refer to Paragraph [0096]; a digital data set representing the initial arrangement of a patient’s teeth is acquired) and an optimized design of a shell-shaped tooth repositioner of a second repositioning step (refer to Paragraphs [0102], [0104], [0109]; the process of creating an optimized aligner is general to the current treatment path segment (206), wherein each treatment path segment (206) defines a repositioning step), wherein the second repositioning step is the previous repositioning step of the first repositioning step (refer to Paragraphs [0102], [0104], [0109]; referring to the second repositioning step as being prior to another or “first” repositioning step is a matter of convention; the current path segment (206) can be before or after another intermediate path segment); and
calculating based on the initial tooth arrangement and the optimized design of the shell- shaped tooth repositioner of the second repositioning step to obtain the initial tooth arrangement of the first repositioning step (refer to Paragraphs [0099]-[0101]; based on the modification of the appliance configuration, the subprocess defining segmented paths (150) recalculates the paths, with the initial tooth arrangement (110) and optimized design of the affected (“second”) repositioning step as inputs; the recalculation includes computing the end points of each affected (“second”) segmented path, with the end point corresponding to the beginning or initial tooth arrangement of the next (“first”) path).
Regarding claim 23, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 19 further comprising:
calculating an optimized force system based on a given condition by taking the ideal force system as target, (refer to Paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0109], Fig. 4; the inputs for the subprocess of modifying the reference design (400) are the forces from the FEA model (reference force system) wherein the forces from the FEA model are calculated based on the aligner material and shape (304), equating to a “given condition”, and the maximum allowable force from the initial calculated path (ideal force system); an optimized force system is then calculated based on the results of this subprocess, wherein the updated threshold limits of linear and rotational translation are input to recalculate the paths in step 150, generating updated or optimized maximum allowable forces for each tooth); and
modifying the reference design according to the difference between the reference force system and the optimized force system to obtain the optimized design (refer to Paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0109], Fig. 4; the updated threshold limits of maximum force for each tooth are used to recalculate the paths in step 150, with these now updated paths and updated maximum forces being used as inputs (404) for modifying the reference design (400) to obtain an optimized aligner shape (490)).
Regarding claim 24, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 23, wherein the force system is a sum of a static force and a static torque (refer to Paragraph [0135], annotated Fig. 11B below; a reference force system is shown based on an initial tooth position with a positioned dental appliance; the force vector represents a sum of the static force (x-direction) and static torque (z-direction)).
PNG
media_image4.png
322
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 23, wherein the given condition comprises:
maximum force that can be achieved by the shell-shaped tooth repositioner, based on a given material and thickness (refer to Paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0109], Fig. 4; the maximum linear and torsional forces from the FEA model are calculated based on the aligner material and shape (304), wherein the shape of the aligner includes the thickness).
Regarding claim 26, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method according to claim 25, wherein the given condition further comprises at least one of
maximum load of an anchorage tooth (refer to Paragraphs [0111], Fig. 4; the maximum linear and torsional forces, or maximum loads, are calculated for each tooth, which includes immobile teeth), root-control requirement, vertical direction control requirement, and any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 27, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 19, wherein the modification comprises at least one
changing a relative positional relationship between tooth cavities, adding an artificially-designed structure and a combination thereof (refer to Paragraph [0194], annotated Fig. 29 below; an attachment (2550) is added to the tooth’s crown surface (2501) with a corresponding ridge (2561) on the appliance), wherein the shell- shaped tooth repositioner forms a cavity for receiving a plurality of teeth, and a part thereof for receiving a single tooth is referred to as a tooth cavity of the tooth (refer to annotated Fig. 29 above; the aligner (2560) is shown receiving a tooth in a cavity).
PNG
media_image5.png
390
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 27, wherein the artificially-designed structure comprises at least one of the following:
local geometry modification (refer to Paragraphs [0135]-[0137] and annotated Fig. 11C below; a relief is added to the aligner), force-applying structure at a point (refer to Paragraph [0194] and annotated Fig. 29 above; an attachment (2550) is formed on the tooth for the appliance to apply corrective force to the active surfaces), local reinforcement structure (refer to Paragraph [0194] and annotated Fig. 29 above; a ridge (2561) is formed on the appliance) and any combination thereof.
PNG
media_image3.png
329
453
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matov et al. (US 20130230818 A1), herein referred to as Matov, in view of Kopelman et al. (US 20160310236 A1), herein referred to as Kopelman’1.
Regarding claim 5, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 1, wherein each of the shell-shaped tooth repositioners forms a cavity for receiving a plurality of teeth, a part thereof for receiving a single tooth is referred to as a tooth cavity of the tooth (refer to Paragraph [0104], annotated Fig. 29 below; a single tooth cavity is shown, wherein the polymeric shell aligners disclosed accommodate a plurality of teeth) and an optimized design of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner is obtained (240, 450; refer to Paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0109], [0111] , Figs. 2B, 4; the appliance design and force applied by the appliance to the teeth are both optimized by subprocesses (200, 400)); however, Matov is silent to the optimized design allowing partial overlap of tooth cavities.
Kopelman’1 discloses a method of generating improved shell- shaped tooth repositioners in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0223], Fig. 28). In designing the shell- shaped tooth repositioners, an optimized movement path is provided (refer to Paragraph [0226]), with the geometry of the shell-shaped tooth repositioner based on this optimized path (refer to Paragraph [0227]). One such geometry allows partial overlap of tooth cavities of two adjacent teeth (refer to annotated Fig. 10B below). The overlap of the tooth cavities accommodates the tooth movement (refer to Paragraph [0228]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of generating optimized shell shaped tooth repositioners as taught by Matov to include overlapping tooth cavity geometry in the design of the shell shaped tooth repositioners as taught by Kopelman’1 to accommodate adjacent tooth movement.
PNG
media_image6.png
382
588
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Matov and Kopelman’1 discloses the computer-implemented method according to claim 5; Matov is silent to a partial overlap of tooth cavities in the range of 0.3-[[~]] 0.5mm.
Although Matov is silent to a partial overlap of tooth cavities, Fig. 1D discloses the majority of achieved motion of a tooth in a dental appliance as in the range of 0-0.5mm, which overlaps with the range of 0.3-0.5mm. This means the movement path of a tooth is most often in the range of 0-0.5mm.
Kopelman’1 then teaches that the geometry of the overlapping tooth cavity regions (refer to annotated Fig. 10B above) is provided with additional space for accommodating the movement path of the adjacent teeth (refer to Paragraph [0228]). As Matov teaches the movement path is often in the range of 0-0.5mm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have defined the overlapping region between the two tooth cavities as taught by Kopelman’1, with the range of achieved motion as taught by Matov, as the additional space is taught as accommodating tooth movement, and the range of tooth movement of 0-0.5mm is taught in the art.
PNG
media_image7.png
471
819
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matov et al. (US 20130230818 A1), herein referred to as Matov, in view of Kopelman et al. (US 20180206940 A1), herein referred to as Kopelman’2.
Regarding claim 10, Matov discloses the computer-implemented method (100) according to claim 10 further comprising:
presenting the patient's jaw on the user interface (refer to Paragraph [0127] and Fig. 10); wherein teeth of the patient’s jaw have compensatory force systems via a compensatory design amount (refer to Paragraphs [0135]-[0137], annotated Figs. 11B-11C below; a reference force system is shown in Fig. 11B based on an initial tooth position, desired movement and a dental appliance; Fig. 11C shows a relief, the compensatory design amount, based on the optimized aligner shape geometry, where the optimized geometry is based on the calculated optimal forces to counteract the undesirable forces of the reference force system).
PNG
media_image2.png
322
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
329
453
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Matov does not disclose marking the teeth with compensatory force systems on the patient’s jaw.
Kopelman’2 discloses a method of assessing an orthodontic treatment plan in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0018]). The user interface (118) displays the patient’s jaw, and marks different clinical signs on the relevant teeth with a tag in the form of different colors, wherein the clinical signs includes tooth movement opposite to planned movement, less than planned movement and greater than planned movement (refer to Paragraphs [0058]-[0059], [0064] and Fig. 9). The markings allow the dental practitioner to easily identify affected teeth (refer to Paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of displaying the patient’s jaw as taught by Matov with the method of marking affected teeth as taught by Kopelman’2 in order to easily identify affected teeth.
Response to Arguments
The outstanding specification objection of the abstract length is withdrawn in view of the newly submitted abstract amendment.
The outstanding claim objections of claims 1, 6, 10-12, 15-16, 17, 23, 25, 27 and 28 are withdrawn in view of the newly submitted claim amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments for 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims (1-7, 9-15, 19-28) have been reviewed in light of the referenced August 2025 memo, and are not drawn to a practical implementation of the abstract idea. Orthodontists have long calculated forces on a patient’s tooth and designed tooth repositioning systems for moving teeth without a computer. Further, stating that the process is computer implemented is a means of implementing the abstract idea in a computer environment. Examiner recommends adding a practical step of manufacturing or producing the appliances to the independent claims to overcome this rejection.
Regarding the arguments that Matov does not teach amended claim 1, Examiner points to the above rejection. By definition, aligners apply repositioning forces to teeth, any modification of the aligner shape inherently affects the forces applied to the teeth. By iteratively modifying the aligner geometry and calculating the maximum forces of the teeth to determine if they exceed or do not meet the ideal conditions, Matov is modifying the geometry of the aligner based on the differences between the two force systems. Further, Applicant’s claim language does not differentiate the claimed process (obtaining a treatment plan, calculating repositioning steps, modifying aligner geometry to achieve repositioning targets) from Matov’s process (refer to Figs. 2A-4, 6 of Matov).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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