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 .
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 1-4, 6-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite mostly determining and generating steps that could be performed in the mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because storing and retrieving information in memory is well-understood, routine, conventional computer function MPEP 2106.05(d). It is noted that claim 15 is not rejected under 101 as it recites “fabricating the orthodontic appliance based on the virtual orthodontic appliance design”.
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 6-12, 14-18, 20-21, 23-24 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.
Claim 6 recites “a calibrated compliance matrix of the baseline PDL of the at least one tooth”, but it is unclear exactly what a “calibrated compliance matrix” would entail. The term itself is not a known term in the art and the claim only vaguely states that it is based on other parameters, but not what it entails. Claim 6 also recites “a reference mapping matrix” and “a characteristic matrix” which are unclear for the same reason.
Claim 8 recites “a stiffness matrix as an inverse of the characteristic compliance matrix”. Claims 17, 21, and 23 recite “a corrected reference mapping matrix”. Claim 18 recites “a corrected characteristic compliance matrix”. Claim 24 recites “a corrected characteristic matrix”. These are unclear for the same reasons as above.
In claim 11, line 3 ends in a period. It is unclear if the claim is supposed to end here or continue. For purposes of examination, this will be considered as an intended semicolon.
Claim 12 recites “further comprising generating the design…”, however claim 1 from which this depends already has a generating step of the same design. It is unclear if this is meant to be an additional design, or that “generating the design further comprises” was intended. This will be interpreted as further defining the generating step of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the one or more force parameters" in line 2. Claim 15 recites “the updated PMM of the at least one tooth” in line 1. Claim 16 recites “the comparison” in line 3. Claim 24 recites “the first scale factor” and “the second scale factor” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2022/0104920).
Wang shows a method for generating a design of an orthodontic appliance, the method comprising receiving a digital three-dimensional representation of at least one tooth ([0044]); accessing a Reduced Order Model (ROM) of a periodontal ligament (PDL) of the at least one tooth in the digital 3D representation ([0022] establishes the use of ROM for any of the methods/simulations, [0055]-[0057] gives additional detail on the bone remodeling [incorporating PDL response] simulation), wherein the ROM represents a mechanical response of the PDL of the at least one tooth ([0055] in particular discusses the mechanical response of the PDL within the simulation); and generating the design of the orthodontic appliance based at least partially on the ROM of the PDL of the at least one tooth ([0039] and [0044] for instance discuss using the mechanical simulations discussed above to design appliances). With respect to claim 2, wherein the ROM comprises a simplified mathematical representation comprising a plurality of numerical values representing compliance or stiffness of the PDL of the at least one tooth with respect to three translational degrees of freedom and three rotational degrees of freedom ([0056] discusses using a 6 degree-of-freedom spring to represent the PDL; [0057]-[0058] discuss matters of compliance/stiffness including force criteria/permanent displacement, adjusted spring parameters; [0060] discusses the elastic deformation). With respect to claim 3, wherein accessing the ROM comprises generating the ROM ([0022]), wherein generating the ROM comprises characterizing a mechanical response of a baseline PDL of the at least one tooth to a plurality of orthodontic force parameters ([0057] discusses that Fig. 5A illustrates the PDL model and Fig. 5B illustrates possible force criterion); and determining one or more ROM parameters of the ROM of the baseline PDL based at least on the digital 3D representation (baseline PDL model of Fig. 4B for instance which details the thickness/height/response characteristics of the PDL). With respect to claim 4, further comprising generating a physics-based mathematical model (PMM) of the at least one tooth based on the digital 3D representation (physics-based mathematical model described in [0057] in regards to forces, force criteria, displacement, etc; Fig. 5A-B), wherein the PMM comprises at least a PDL model (PDL 510), and wherein the ROM is determined further based on the PMM ([0022], for instance discusses the modeling herein may be accelerated by running a finite set of trained models and training as a reduced order model to accelerate the algorithm). With respect to claim 11, further comprising removing the PDL model from the PMM (equivalent to Fig. 4B where springs or other material responses are substituted for the PDL model behavior); and applying the ROM at the center of resistance to generate an updated PMM of the at least one tooth ([0064] discusses utilizing center of resistance estimations to simulate tooth movement); receiving a target arrangement of the at least one tooth (“desired arrangement”; [0004]); and determining one or more force parameters based on the updated PMM ([0057] in regards to forces, force criteria, displacement, etc; Fig. 5A-B that has replaced/simplified the PDL model) to achieve the target arrangement from an initial arrangement of the at least one tooth (“resulted simulated tooth positions”), wherein the digital 3D representation represents the initial arrangement of the at least one tooth (simulations based on data acquired; [0004] discusses utilizing the scans for the simulation). With respect to claim 12, further comprising generating the design of the orthodontic appliance, such that the orthodontic appliance applies the one or more force parameters to the at least one tooth to achieve the target arrangement ([0007] discusses aligner design to increase forces acting on teeth when necessary). With respect to claim 14, further comprising receiving a target arrangement of the at least one tooth (“desired arrangement”; [0004]); receiving an orthodontic appliance data wherein the orthodontic appliance data comprises at least one of orthodontic appliance material properties and orthodontic appliance geometry ([0057]; appliance design 126 for instance); and forming a virtual orthodontic appliance design based on the orthodontic appliance data (aligner/shell shown top of Fig. 5A for instance, allowing for modifying of the design [0004]). With respect to claim 15, further comprising modifying the updated PMM of the at least one tooth by adding the virtual orthodontic appliance design to the updated PMM and simulating an interaction between the at least one tooth in the updated PMM and the virtual orthodontic appliance design and determining a resulting tooth arrangement ([0004]-[0005] discuss designing the appliance for the initial treatment plan and simulating the action of one or more dental appliances/aligners). With respect to claim 16, further comprising verifying that the virtual orthodontic appliance design is applying one or more force parameters to achieve the target arrangement of the at least one tooth based on the comparison ([0007] discusses the comparison); and modifying the virtual orthodontic appliance design if the virtual orthodontic appliance design is not applying the one or more force parameters to achieve the target arrangement ([0007] also discusses differences being used to modify the one or more appliances), fabricating the orthodontic appliance based on the virtual orthodontic appliance design ([0008] production thereof).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of Wang shows similar use of ROM based on PDL behavior for orthodontic appliance design, but does not show that generation of the ROM utilizes a calibrated compliance matrix that a plurality of center of resistance parameters are based on, which are then used to determine a reference mapping matrix, which is used in combination with the calibrated compliance matrix to determine a characteristic compliance matrix.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772