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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 8, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-10 of Remarks, filed June 8, 2026, with respect to the restriction requirement have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction requirement of April 8, 2026 has been withdrawn.
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: 620 in Fig. 6C. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 2 line 4 of page 20, “non-volatile storage 704” should read “non-volatile storage 706”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 contains the subject matter: “wherein determining, based on the dentition data and the first computer model, the geometries of the set of indirect bond trays using the set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth of the patient comprises: determining that a condition in which a particular rule of the set of rules would apply is met; and in response to determining that the condition is met, applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays”. This subject matter is already included in claim 13, which claim 19 is dependent on. Thus, the dependent claim 19 fails to further limit the subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schueller et al. (US 20230240808 A1), hereinafter Schueller.
Regarding claim 1, Schueller teaches a method for constructing a set of indirect bond trays for transferring one or more orthodontic appliances to one or more respective teeth of a patient (Paragraph 0002, 0032, 0041 – “the present invention relates to methods and apparatus for the positioning of orthodontic brackets upon teeth using indirect bonding trays…other variations may include hybrid IDB trays which are fabricated as two or more separate components…the method may generally comprise receiving three-dimensional scanned data relating to a dentition of a patient to form a corresponding digital model of the dentition…digitally forming one or more modules corresponding to the position of the one or more brackets upon the dentition, and incorporating the one or more modules with the orthodontic shell to form an hybrid IDB tray”; Note: the method constructs hybrid IDB trays, which are equivalent to the indirect bond trays, for transferring brackets to teeth. Brackets are orthodontic appliances), the method comprising:
receiving dentition data associated with a patient (Paragraph 0085-0086 – “In forming the aligner-like orthodontic shell conformed to the patient's specific dentition, three-dimensional scan data of the dentition may be received by the computer”);
generating a first computer model of teeth of the patient for use in determining placement of the one or more orthodontic appliances on the one or more respective teeth (Paragraph 0041, 0086 – “receiving three-dimensional scanned data relating to a dentition of a patient to form a corresponding digital model of the dentition…create a digital model of an aligner-like orthodontic shell which conforms to the scanned dentition. A treatment plan may be digitally determined for correcting any malocclusions or other issues with respect to the dentition and the appropriate locations for placement of any orthodontic appliances such as brackets for bracket-wire treatments upon the teeth may be determined. With the bracket locations determined based upon the treatment for correction of the dentition, the bracket positioning may be located upon each relevant crown with the teeth in their initial pre-treatment position based upon the scanned digital model”; Note: the digital model of the dentition is equivalent to the first computer model. It is used to determine the placement of brackets on the teeth);
generating a second computer model of the set of indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0086 – “The individual modules may be digitally formed around the bracket positions upon the teeth in their pre-treatment locations and the modules may then be integrated in an additive process with the aligner-like orthodontic shell to form a digital model of a singular aligner-like IDB tray or a hybrid IDB tray where the modules for bracket positioning are integrated directly with the aligner-like orthodontic shell which is conformed to the patient dentition”; Note: the digital model of the IDB tray is equivalent to the second computer model), the generating comprising: determining, based on the dentition data and the first computer model, geometries of the set of indirect bond trays using a set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth of the patient (Paragraph 0086, 0088, 0090, 0097 – “form a digital model of a singular aligner-like IDB tray or a hybrid IDB tray where the modules for bracket positioning are integrated directly with the aligner-like orthodontic shell which is conformed to the patient dentition… Because the orthodontic shell 42 is conformed directly to the anatomy of the patient's teeth, the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be readily placed upon the dentition ensuring that each of the IDB modules 44 are accurately positioned upon the respective crown surface…Because the modules 44 may be customized for each patient's anatomy and individual treatment plan, the recesses 48 may be accordingly customized for various different bracket types where the bracket types can be varied along the same hybrid IDB tray 40… In addition to facilitating securement of the hybrid IDB tray 40 to the patient's dentition, the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be also configured to follow best fit bite plane 70 of the patient's dentition”; Note: the shape of the IDB tray is customized/determined according to rules related to the dentition and placement of the brackets. Examples of the rules include considering bracket type, following best fit bite plane, etc.);
and constructing, using an additive manufacturing process, the set of indirect bond trays based on the second computer model (Paragraph 0086, 0126 – “The digital model may then be used to fabricate the hybrid IDB tray using any number of the manufacturing methods such as additive printing… other variations may include hybrid IDB trays which are fabricated as two or more separate components”; Note: the IDB trays are additively manufactured based on the digital model, which is equivalent to the second computer model).
Regarding claim 2, Schueller teaches the method of claim 1. Schueller further teaches wherein determining, based on the dentition data and the first computer model, the geometries of the set of indirect bond trays using the set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth of the patient comprises: determining that a condition in which a particular rule of the set of rules would apply is met; and in response to determining that the condition is met, applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0087, 0107 – “FIG. 5A illustrates a perspective view of the digital model of the hybrid IDB tray combination 40…One or more regions of the hybrid IDB tray 40, e.g., along the lingual side, may be varied in thickness to have relatively thinner regions and/or relatively thicker regions such that the flexibility of the orthodontic shell 42 and hybrid IDB tray 40 may be adjusted to become more rigid and/or less rigid overall or more rigid and/or less rigid along select regions depending upon the desired flexibility”; Note: in this example, there is a condition related to the desired flexibility. If the desired flexibility is not yet reached, the rigidity of the model of the IDB tray is adjusted. In this example, adjusting the rigidity is equivalent to the applying the rule).
Regarding claim 3, Schueller teaches the method of claim 2. Schueller further teaches wherein applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays comprises modifying the second computer model of the indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0087, 0106, 0108 – “FIG. 5A illustrates a perspective view of the digital model of the hybrid IDB tray combination 40 showing the digital models of individual IDB modules 44 incorporated directly with the digital model of the orthodontic shell 42…With individual modules 44 aligned adjacently along the orthodontic shell 42, the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be adjusted in its rigidity, for instance, either its overall rigidity or along specified regions of the orthodontic shell 42 in between adjacent modules 44… the thickness of the orthodontic shell 42 itself may be adjusted, e.g., reduced, along the entire length of the orthodontic shell 42 to increase the overall flexibility of the orthodontic shell 42”; Note: in this example of applying a rule, the IDB tray model is modified to adjust rigidity and/or thickness based on the condition of a desired flexibility).
Regarding claim 4, Schueller teaches the method of claim 2. Schueller further teaches wherein applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays comprises segmenting an indirect bond tray of the set of indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0126 – “FIG. 17A shows a top view of one variation where an hybrid IDB tray assembly 160 may include several hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170 which collectively form an entire hybrid IDB tray 160. The hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170 may be digitally separated along separation planes 174, 176 which divide each of the hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170 from one another. Furthermore, the separation planes 174, 176 may be located between any of the teeth and while three individual segments are shown in this variation, other variations may have the hybrid IDB tray assembly 160 separated into two separate segments or more than three segments as desired”; Note: in this example of applying a rule, the IDB tray is segmented into three segments based on the condition that three segments were desired by the operator).
Regarding claim 6, Schueller teaches the method of claim 2. Schueller further teaches wherein applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays comprises using a single indirect bond tray of the set of indirect bond trays for transfer of orthodontic appliances to a particular set of the teeth of the patient (Fig. 17A, Paragraph 0086, 0126 – “A treatment plan may be digitally determined for correcting any malocclusions or other issues with respect to the dentition and the appropriate locations for placement of any orthodontic appliances such as brackets for bracket-wire treatments upon the teeth may be determined. With the bracket locations determined based upon the treatment for correction of the dentition, the bracket positioning may be located upon each relevant crown with the teeth in their initial pre-treatment position based upon the scanned digital model …FIG. 17A shows a top view of one variation where an hybrid IDB tray assembly 160 may include several hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170…the separation planes 174, 176 may be located between any of the teeth and while three individual segments are shown in this variation, other variations may have the hybrid IDB tray assembly 160 separated into two separate segments or more than three segments as desired”; Note: in this example of applying a rule, a single IDB tray 166 of a set of three IDB trays is used for transfer of brackets to the four back left teeth, based on the condition that the specific separation planes were desired by the operator; see screenshot of Fig. 17A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
471
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of Fig. 17A (taken from Schueller)
Regarding claim 7, Schueller teaches the method of claim 2. Schueller further teaches wherein applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays comprises assigning one or more particular teeth of the patient's teeth to a particular indirect bond tray of the set of indirect bond trays (Fig. 17A, Paragraph 0126 – “FIG. 17A shows a top view of one variation where an hybrid IDB tray assembly 160 may include several hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170…The hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170 may be digitally separated along separation planes 174, 176 which divide each of the hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170 from one another. Furthermore, the separation planes 174, 176 may be located between any of the teeth and while three individual segments are shown in this variation, other variations may have the hybrid IDB tray assembly 160 separated into two separate segments or more than three segments as desired”; Note: in this example of applying a rule, the four back left teeth are assigned to a IDB tray 166 of a set of three IDB trays by a separation plane, based on the condition that the specific separation planes were desired by the operator; see screenshot of Fig. 17A above).
Regarding claim 10, Schueller teaches the method of claim 1. Schueller further teaches wherein determining, based on the dentition data and the first computer model, the geometries of the set of indirect bond trays using the set of rules comprises: generating an initial model of a first set of one or more indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0086 – “The individual modules may be digitally formed around the bracket positions upon the teeth in their pre-treatment locations and the modules may then be integrated in an additive process with the aligner-like orthodontic shell to form a digital model of a singular aligner-like IDB tray or a hybrid IDB tray where the modules for bracket positioning are integrated directly with the aligner-like orthodontic shell which is conformed to the patient dentition”; Note: the digital model of the IDB tray is equivalent to the initial model); and using the set of rules to modify the first set of one or more indirect bond trays to obtain the set of the indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0099-0100, 0106 – “The hybrid IDB tray 40 may be configured and designed to follow the specific gingival interface of the patient along the lingual side such that the hybrid IDB tray 40 forms a tray interface 80 which curves to interface against the natural undercut and follows along the gingival interface. This tray interface 80 helps to secure the hybrid IDB tray 40 into this natural undercut and further allows for a reduction in the amount of material…With individual modules 44 aligned adjacently along the orthodontic shell 42, the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be adjusted in its rigidity, for instance, either its overall rigidity or along specified regions of the orthodontic shell 42 in between adjacent modules 44”; Note: the IDB tray is modified to follow various rules, some of which include rules related to rigidity and the gingival interface as examples).
Regarding claim 11, Schueller teaches the method of claim 1. Schueller further teaches wherein: each indirect bond tray of at least some of the set of indirect bond trays includes: an occlusal base defining one or more impressions conforming to at least a portion of one or more respective occlusal surfaces of the one or more respective teeth (Paragraph 0087 – “FIG. 5A illustrates a perspective view of the digital model of the hybrid IDB tray combination 40 showing the digital models of individual IDB modules 44 incorporated directly with the digital model of the orthodontic shell 42 to create a singular hybrid IDB tray having the IDB modules 44… Because the orthodontic shell 42 is conformed directly to the anatomy of the patient's teeth, the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be readily placed upon the dentition ensuring that each of the IDB modules 44 are accurately positioned upon the respective crown surface”; Note: the orthodontic shell 42 of the IDB tray has an occlusal base that conforms to the occlusal surface of the teeth, as shown in modified screenshot of Fig. 5A); and a buccal wall defining one or more respective wells for removably retaining one or more respective orthodontic appliances adapted to be bonded to the one or more respective teeth, the buccal wall extending substantially orthogonally from the occlusal base (Fig. 5A, Paragraph 0089-0090 – “each of the individual modules 44 are formed to create a recess 48 within which each respective bracket pad may be securely held for placement upon the patient's crowns…the variation shows the modules 44 formed along the buccal surfaces of the orthodontic shell such that the recesses 48 open against the buccal surfaces of the orthodontic shell 42…one or more recesses 48 within the modules 44 may optionally incorporate a retention feature for removably securing the brackets within the recess 48”; Note: the part of the modules formed along the buccal surfaces of the orthodontic shell are equivalent to the buccal wall. They define wells/recesses for retaining brackets. Fig. 5A below shows the buccal wall as substantially orthogonal to the occlusal base); and the method further comprises determining a number of the one or more impressions based on the second computer model (Paragraph 0071, 0087, 0093 – “Because the individual modules 12 may be formed for each crown that mates to a respective tooth using, e.g., buccal, lingual, and/or occlusal surfaces, any number of individual modules 12 may be removed from the IDB tray 10 depending upon the number of brackets to be applied… FIG. 5A illustrates a perspective view of the digital model of the hybrid IDB tray combination 40 showing the digital models of individual IDB modules 44 incorporated directly with the digital model of the orthodontic shell …the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be formed to extend along any desired length of the dentition arch where a bracket or other orthodontic appliance is to be secured”; Note: the number of impressions is determined by the number of modules in the IDB tray digital model. Since each module corresponds to a tooth, each module then requires a corresponding impression of the tooth surface).
PNG
media_image2.png
283
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified screenshot of Fig. 5A (taken from Schueller)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schueller.
Regarding claim 5, Schueller teaches the method of claim 2. The embodiment of Schueller that teaches the method of claim 2 does not teach wherein applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays comprises limiting a particular number of teeth for which an indirect bond tray of the set of indirect bond trays can be used for transfer of the one or more orthodontic appliances. However, a different embodiment of Schueller teaches limiting a particular number of teeth for which an indirect bond tray of the set of indirect bond trays can be used for transfer of the one or more orthodontic appliances (Paragraph 0071 – “Because the individual modules 12 may be formed for each crown that mates to a respective tooth using, e.g., buccal, lingual, and/or occlusal surfaces, any number of individual modules 12 may be removed from the IDB tray 10 depending upon the number of brackets to be applied”; Note: in this example of applying a rule, given the condition of the number of brackets to be applied, the number of modules is limited to the number of brackets to be applied. The modules correspond to individual teeth). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schueller, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP $2143(A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheuller to apply a rule that limits a particular number of teeth for which an indirect bond tray be used for the benefit of “reduc[ing] the amount of the material used in creating the hybrid IDB tray to save on material waste” (Schueller: Paragraph 0015). By having a rule that limits the number of modules, such as by excluding teeth that do not need brackets, less material is used in the manufacturing of the indirect bonding trays. The prior art included each element recited in claim 5, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, Shueller teaches an additively manufactured indirect bond tray for transferring one or more orthodontic appliances to one or more respective teeth of a patient, the additively manufactured indirect bond tray (Paragraph 0086-0087 – “The digital model may then be used to fabricate the hybrid IDB tray using any number of the manufacturing methods such as additive printing, thermoforming, etc… FIG. 5A illustrates a perspective view of the digital model of the hybrid IDB tray combination 40 showing the digital models of individual IDB modules 44 incorporated directly with the digital model of the orthodontic shell 42 to create a singular hybrid IDB tray having the IDB modules 44 which may be fabricated… The accurate positioning of the modules 44 allows for the orthodontic appliance within the modules 44, such as brackets, to be accurately positioned and secured to the surfaces of the respective crown at their pre-treatment locations”; Note: an IDB tray is additively manufactured for placing brackets on teeth. The brackets are orthodontic appliances) comprising:
an occlusal base defining one or more impressions conforming to at least a portion of one or more respective occlusal surfaces of the one or more respective teeth (Paragraph 0087 – “FIG. 5A illustrates a perspective view of the digital model of the hybrid IDB tray combination 40 showing the digital models of individual IDB modules 44 incorporated directly with the digital model of the orthodontic shell 42 to create a singular hybrid IDB tray having the IDB modules 44… Because the orthodontic shell 42 is conformed directly to the anatomy of the patient's teeth, the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be readily placed upon the dentition ensuring that each of the IDB modules 44 are accurately positioned upon the respective crown surface”; Note: the orthodontic shell 42 of the IDB tray has an occlusal base that conforms to the occlusal surface of the teeth, as shown in modified screenshot of Fig. 5A);
and a buccal wall defining one or more respective wells for removably retaining one or more respective orthodontic appliances adapted to be bonded to the one or more respective teeth, the buccal wall extending substantially orthogonally from the occlusal base (Fig. 5A, Paragraph 0089-0090 – “each of the individual modules 44 are formed to create a recess 48 within which each respective bracket pad may be securely held for placement upon the patient's crowns…the variation shows the modules 44 formed along the buccal surfaces of the orthodontic shell such that the recesses 48 open against the buccal surfaces of the orthodontic shell 42…one or more recesses 48 within the modules 44 may optionally incorporate a retention feature for removably securing the brackets within the recess 48”; Note: the part of the modules formed along the buccal surfaces of the orthodontic shell are equivalent to the buccal wall. They define wells/recesses for retaining brackets. Fig. 5A above shows the buccal wall as substantially orthogonal to the occlusal base).
Schueller does not directly teach wherein a number of the one or more impressions is determined by a set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth of the patient. However, Schueller separately teaches wherein a number of the one or more impressions is determined by a rule (Paragraph 0071, 0087, 0093 – “Because the individual modules 12 may be formed for each crown that mates to a respective tooth using, e.g., buccal, lingual, and/or occlusal surfaces, any number of individual modules 12 may be removed from the IDB tray 10 depending upon the number of brackets to be applied… FIG. 5A illustrates a perspective view of the digital model of the hybrid IDB tray combination 40 showing the digital models of individual IDB modules 44 incorporated directly with the digital model of the orthodontic shell … the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be formed to extend along any desired length of the dentition arch where a bracket or other orthodontic appliance is to be secured”; Note: the number of impressions is determined by the rule that the number of modules in the IDB tray is limited to the number of brackets to be applied. Since each module corresponds to a tooth, each module then requires a corresponding impression of the tooth surface); and a set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth of the patient (Paragraph 0088, 0090, 0097 – “Because the orthodontic shell 42 is conformed directly to the anatomy of the patient's teeth, the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be readily placed upon the dentition ensuring that each of the IDB modules 44 are accurately positioned upon the respective crown surface. The accurate positioning of the modules 44 allows for the orthodontic appliance within the modules 44, such as brackets, to be accurately positioned and secured to the surfaces of the respective crown at their pre-treatment locations…Because the modules 44 may be customized for each patient's anatomy and individual treatment plan, the recesses 48 may be accordingly customized for various different bracket types where the bracket types can be varied along the same hybrid IDB tray 40… In addition to facilitating securement of the hybrid IDB tray 40 to the patient's dentition, the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be also configured to follow best fit bite plane 70 of the patient's dentition”; Note: there are various rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the brackets to the teeth, including conforming to patient anatomy and following best fit bite plane). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schueller to combine the features to determine a number of impressions by a set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy because the rules ensure that the IDB tray conforms to patient anatomy, and patient anatomy defines the number of teeth there are, which affects the number of impressions required for the IDB tray. Thus, combining these set of rules with the rule related to the number of modules would help determine how many impressions are in the final IDB tray.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schueller in view of Hirsch et al. (US 20230157792 A1), hereinafter Hirsch.
Regarding claim 8, Schueller teaches the method of claim 1. Schueller further teaches wherein determining the geometries of the set of indirect bond trays using a set of rules comprises applying the set of rules to the second computer model of the set of indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0087, 0107 – “FIG. 5A illustrates a perspective view of the digital model of the hybrid IDB tray combination 40…One or more regions of the hybrid IDB tray 40, e.g., along the lingual side, may be varied in thickness to have relatively thinner regions and/or relatively thicker regions such that the flexibility of the orthodontic shell 42 and hybrid IDB tray 40 may be adjusted to become more rigid and/or less rigid overall or more rigid and/or less rigid along select regions depending upon the desired flexibility”; Note: rigidity rules are applied to the model of the IDB tray based on desired flexibility). Schueller does not teach iterative application of the set of rules. However, Hirsch teaches an iterative application (Paragraph 0089 – “These steps can be repeated as many times as desired until the treating professional is satisfied with the final positions of the teeth as represented by the modeling software”; Note: steps are iteratively applied). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schueller to incorporate the teachings of Hirsch to iteratively apply the set of rules to the second computer model for the benefit of reaching a desired indirect bonding tray. For example, Schueller teaches applying a rule that involves adjusting rigidity in order to reach a desired flexibility (Paragraph 0107); if it takes multiple adjustments to reach the desired flexibility, then multiple iterations of the adjustments must be performed. In other words, an iterative application of steps of a rule helps to ensure a proper end result.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schueller in view of Machata et al. (US 20160074139 A1), Linn et al. (A Comparison of Bond Strength Between Direct and Indirect-bonding Methods), and Bachour et al. (Transfer accuracy of 3D-printed trays for indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets: A clinical study), hereinafter Machata, Linn, and Bachour respectively.
Regarding claim 9, Schueller teaches the method of claim 1. Schueller further teaches wherein the set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth are based on one or more of:
appliance placement on location on a tooth (Paragraph 0114-0115 – “one or more recesses 48 within the modules 44 may optionally incorporate an occlusal retention feature 120 designed for maintaining a position of the bracket 130 within the recess 48 and relative to the crown surface for positioning and securement… The retention feature 120 is illustrated in FIG. 13A as having a tapered distal end to facilitate the insertion and removal of the bracket pad 130 from the retention region 122”; Note: the retention feature rule is based on placement of the bracket);
appliance interaction with another tooth and/or another appliance (Paragraph 0114-0115 – “one or more recesses 48 within the modules 44 may optionally incorporate an occlusal retention feature 120 designed for maintaining a position of the bracket 130 within the recess 48 and relative to the crown surface for positioning and securement… The retention feature 120 is illustrated in FIG. 13A as having a tapered distal end to facilitate the insertion and removal of the bracket pad 130 from the retention region 122”; Note: the retention feature rule is based on the insertion and removal of the bracket pad);
position of a tooth relative to one or more other teeth (Paragraph 0109 – “FIG. 10C illustrates a perspective view of the orthodontic shell 42 and modules 44 and the portions of the orthodontic shell 42 which extend between the interproximal regions of the teeth. One or more of these interproximal regions may also incorporate a retention feature 104 which may extend along the region and project away from the orthodontic shell wall such that the retention feature 104 abuts between the two adjacent surfaces of the crowns to further secure the hybrid IDB tray 40 relative to the teeth… For example, in a region where adjacent teeth may have a relatively larger gap, such a feature 104 may be incorporated to ensure that the orthodontic shell 42 is secured within the gap”; Note: the retention feature rule is based on the position of a tooth relative to another tooth);
lack of teeth (Paragraph 0071 – “Because the individual modules 12 may be formed for each crown that mates to a respective tooth using, e.g., buccal, lingual, and/or occlusal surfaces, any number of individual modules 12 may be removed from the IDB tray 10 depending upon the number of brackets to be applied”; Note: the rule for the number of modules is based on how many teeth there are and how many brackets to apply. A lack of teeth is inherently taken into consideration when determining the number of teeth or brackets because brackets can only be applied if there are teeth);
divergence of teeth (Paragraph 0109 – “FIG. 10C illustrates a perspective view of the orthodontic shell 42 and modules 44 and the portions of the orthodontic shell 42 which extend between the interproximal regions of the teeth. One or more of these interproximal regions may also incorporate a retention feature 104 which may extend along the region and project away from the orthodontic shell wall such that the retention feature 104 abuts between the two adjacent surfaces of the crowns to further secure the hybrid IDB tray 40 relative to the teeth… For example, in a region where adjacent teeth may have a relatively larger gap, such a feature 104 may be incorporated to ensure that the orthodontic shell 42 is secured within the gap”; Note: the retention feature rule is based on adjacent teeth diverging (large gap));
mitigation of material ingress (Paragraph 0080 – “one or more of the modules 12 may be formed with recesses or radiused portions 24 on either side of the module 12 such that the distal portions of the module 12 narrow relative to the rest of the module cross-section. These recessed or radiused portions 24 may provide additional space between the modules for accessing the underlying surface of the respective crown for cleaning debris or excess adhesive once the bracket has been applied”; Note: rules related to recesses are based on being able to clean debris or excess adhesive, which is mitigation of material ingress);
and mitigation of interference between peripheral material of tray and gum tissue (Paragraph 0099 – “The crown C generally forms a natural undercut along the gingival margin as illustrated between the crown C and gums G in FIG. 9B. The hybrid IDB tray 40 may be configured and designed to follow the specific gingival interface of the patient along the lingual side such that the hybrid IDB tray 40 forms a tray interface 80 which curves to interface against the natural undercut and follows along the gingival interface”; Note: the rule keeps the tray design along the gingival interface, rather than along the gums, which prevents gum interference).
Schueller does not teach wherein the set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth are based on one or more of: tooth torque, tip, rotation, and/or angulation; and appliance torque, tip, rotation, and/or angulation. However, Machata teaches wherein the set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth are based on one or more of: tooth torque, tip, rotation, and/or angulation (Paragraph 0029, 0032 – “an arm and aperture associated with the crowded tooth may still be incorporated into the tray to facilitate bracket placement…the arm design and/or arm tip design cooperates with the physical features of the bracket to position the bracket at the predetermined torque, tilt, or rotation relative to the tooth”; Note: the rule of the arm design is based on the torque, tilt, or rotation of the bracket, which is dependent on the torque, tilt, or rotation of the tooth); and appliance torque, tip, rotation, and/or angulation (Paragraph 0029, 0032 – “an arm and aperture associated with the crowded tooth may still be incorporated into the tray to facilitate bracket placement…the arm design and/or arm tip design cooperates with the physical features of the bracket to position the bracket at the predetermined torque, tilt, or rotation relative to the tooth”; Note: the rule of the arm design is based on the torque, tilt, or rotation of the bracket). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schueller to incorporate the teachings of Machata to have the rules be based on tooth rotation and appliance rotation for the benefit of “proper placement of the bracket 18” (Machata: Paragraph 0039). In other words, consideration of the tooth and appliance rotation allows for a design that properly holds the bracket in place in relation to the tooth.
Moreover, Schueller modified by Machata does not directly teach whether an appliance is to be directly bonded. However, Linn teaches whether an appliance is to be directly bonded (Paragraph 3 in 1st Col. of Page 3, Paragraph 2 in 1st Col. of Page 4 – “Group 1 used a light-cured, highly filled orthodontic adhesive, Transbond XT (3M/Unitek Corporation, Monrovia, Calif), and Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive Primer (3M/Uniteck) and used the direct-bonding protocol recommended by the manufacturer… For group 1, the brackets were bonded by the direct method, one at a time”; Note: a bracket/appliance is directly bonded), and Schueller indirectly teaches wherein the set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth are based on one or more of: whether an appliance is to be directly bonded (Paragraph 0071-0072 – “Because the individual modules 12 may be formed for each crown that mates to a respective tooth using, e.g., buccal, lingual, and/or occlusal surfaces, any number of individual modules 12 may be removed from the IDB tray 10 depending upon the number of brackets to be applied…If the practitioner desires bonding for fewer crowns, or if the crowns have moved since the patient's last visit, the coupling member 18 can be cut or broken by hand to allow for modular crown bonding individually, as part of a subset, or as the full set of brackets”; Note: the rule for the number of modules is based on how many teeth there are and how many brackets to apply. A plan to directly bond a bracket is obviously taken into consideration when determining the number of brackets to apply to the IDB tray because common sense of an orthodontist would realize that if a bracket is to be directly bonded, it should not be indirectly bonded since that would undermine the choice to do direct bonding). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schueller to incorporate the teachings of Linn to have the rules be based on whether the appliance is to be directly bonded because one of Schueller’s main goals is to “reduce the amount of the material used in creating the hybrid IDB tray to save on material waste” (Schueller: Paragraph 0015). By having a rule that limits the number of modules, such as by excluding teeth that are to be directly bonded to the appliances, less material is used in the manufacturing of the indirect bonding trays.
Schueller modified by Machata and Linn still does not directly teach whether a tooth is planned for extraction. However, Bachour teaches whether a tooth is planned for extraction (Paragraph 2 in 1st Col. of Page 2 – “Twenty-two patients were treated without extractions and one patient underwent extraction of four premolars”; Note: there is a plan to extract teeth), and Schueller indirectly teaches wherein the set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth are based on one or more of: whether a tooth is planned for extraction (Paragraph 0071 – “Because the individual modules 12 may be formed for each crown that mates to a respective tooth using, e.g., buccal, lingual, and/or occlusal surfaces, any number of individual modules 12 may be removed from the IDB tray 10 depending upon the number of brackets to be applied”; Note: the rule for the number of modules is based on how many teeth there are and how many brackets to apply. A plan to extract a tooth is obviously taken into consideration when determining the number of brackets to apply because common sense of an orthodontist would realize that a bracket should not be applied to a tooth that will be extracted since the extracted tooth will not be part of the set of teeth in the desired treatment outcome). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schueller to incorporate the teachings of Bachour to have the rules be based on whether a tooth is planned for extraction because one of Schueller’s main goals is to “reduce the amount of the material used in creating the hybrid IDB tray to save on material waste” (Schueller: Paragraph 0015). By having a rule that limits the number of modules, such as by excluding teeth that are to be extracted, less material is used in the manufacturing of the indirect bonding trays. Additionally, if the teeth to be extracted were included in the indirect bonding tray, it would be counterproductive to the treatment goals since the indirect bonding tray would bond brackets to teeth that are not meant to be there and thus interfere with the proper alignment of the other teeth.
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schueller in view of Griffin et al. (US 20190328493 A1), hereinafter Griffin.
Regarding claim 12, Schueller teaches a method for constructing a set of indirect bond trays for transferring one or more orthodontic appliances to one or more respective teeth of a patient (Paragraph 0002, 0032, 0041 – “the present invention relates to methods and apparatus for the positioning of orthodontic brackets upon teeth using indirect bonding trays…other variations may include hybrid IDB trays which are fabricated as two or more separate components…the method may generally comprise receiving three-dimensional scanned data relating to a dentition of a patient to form a corresponding digital model of the dentition…digitally forming one or more modules corresponding to the position of the one or more brackets upon the dentition, and incorporating the one or more modules with the orthodontic shell to form an hybrid IDB tray”; Note: the method constructs hybrid IDB trays, which are equivalent to the indirect bond trays, for transferring brackets to teeth. Brackets are orthodontic appliances), the method comprising:
receiving dentition data associated with a patient (Paragraph 0085-0086 – “In forming the aligner-like orthodontic shell conformed to the patient's specific dentition, three-dimensional scan data of the dentition may be received by the computer”);
generating a first computer model of teeth of the patient for use in determining placement of the one or more orthodontic appliances on the one or more respective teeth (Paragraph 0041, 0086 – “receiving three-dimensional scanned data relating to a dentition of a patient to form a corresponding digital model of the dentition…create a digital model of an aligner-like orthodontic shell which conforms to the scanned dentition. A treatment plan may be digitally determined for correcting any malocclusions or other issues with respect to the dentition and the appropriate locations for placement of any orthodontic appliances such as brackets for bracket-wire treatments upon the teeth may be determined. With the bracket locations determined based upon the treatment for correction of the dentition, the bracket positioning may be located upon each relevant crown with the teeth in their initial pre-treatment position based upon the scanned digital model”; Note: the digital model of the dentition is equivalent to the first computer model. It is used to determine the placement of brackets on the teeth);
and generating a second computer model of the set of indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0086 – “The individual modules may be digitally formed around the bracket positions upon the teeth in their pre-treatment locations and the modules may then be integrated in an additive process with the aligner-like orthodontic shell to form a digital model of a singular aligner-like IDB tray or a hybrid IDB tray where the modules for bracket positioning are integrated directly with the aligner-like orthodontic shell which is conformed to the patient dentition”; Note: the digital model of the IDB tray is equivalent to the second computer model), the generating comprising: determining, based on the dentition data and the first computer model, geometries of the set of indirect bond trays using a set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth of the patient (Paragraph 0086, 0088, 0090, 0097 – “form a digital model of a singular aligner-like IDB tray or a hybrid IDB tray where the modules for bracket positioning are integrated directly with the aligner-like orthodontic shell which is conformed to the patient dentition… Because the orthodontic shell 42 is conformed directly to the anatomy of the patient's teeth, the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be readily placed upon the dentition ensuring that each of the IDB modules 44 are accurately positioned upon the respective crown surface…Because the modules 44 may be customized for each patient's anatomy and individual treatment plan, the recesses 48 may be accordingly customized for various different bracket types where the bracket types can be varied along the same hybrid IDB tray 40… In addition to facilitating securement of the hybrid IDB tray 40 to the patient's dentition, the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be also configured to follow best fit bite plane 70 of the patient's dentition”; Note: the shape of the IDB tray is customized/determined according to rules related to the dentition and placement of the brackets. Examples of the rules include considering bracket type, following best fit bite plane, etc.),
wherein the second computer model of the set of indirect bond trays is used in an additive manufacturing process to construct the set of indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0086, 0126 – “The digital model may then be used to fabricate the hybrid IDB tray using any number of the manufacturing methods such as additive printing… other variations may include hybrid IDB trays which are fabricated as two or more separate components”; Note: the IDB trays are additively manufactured based on the digital model, which is equivalent to the second computer model).
Schueller does not teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer hardware processor, cause the computer hardware processor to perform the method. However, Griffin teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer hardware processor, cause the computer hardware processor to perform the method (Paragraph 0078, 0101 – “Memory 708 stores program instructions that are executed by, and data that are used and processed by, CPU 702 to perform the functions of computer system 700. Memory 708 may include, for example, electronic memory devices, such as random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), programmable read-only memory (PROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory, etc., and electro-mechanical memory, such as magnetic disk drives, tape drives, optical disk drives, etc. …Examples of non-transitory computer readable media include storage media, examples of which include, but are not limited to, floppy disks, hard disk drives, CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, RAM, and, flash memory”). Since Schueller already teaches using software (Paragraph 0069 – “the tray may be designed utilizing automated design software and forming processes such as those developed by uLab Systems, Inc.”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schueller to incorporate the teachings of Griffin to have a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions to be executed by a processor for the benefit of having a reliable and persistent storage so that the software and processes can be used and executed again in the future.
Regarding claim 13, Schueller in view of Griffin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 12. Schueller further teaches wherein determining, based on the dentition data and the first computer model, the geometries of the set of indirect bond trays using the set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth of the patient comprises: determining that a condition in which a particular rule of the set of rules would apply is met; and in response to determining that the condition is met, applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0087, 0107 – “FIG. 5A illustrates a perspective view of the digital model of the hybrid IDB tray combination 40…One or more regions of the hybrid IDB tray 40, e.g., along the lingual side, may be varied in thickness to have relatively thinner regions and/or relatively thicker regions such that the flexibility of the orthodontic shell 42 and hybrid IDB tray 40 may be adjusted to become more rigid and/or less rigid overall or more rigid and/or less rigid along select regions depending upon the desired flexibility”; Note: in this example, there is a condition related to the desired flexibility. If the desired flexibility is not yet reached, the rigidity of the model of the IDB tray is adjusted. In this example, adjusting the rigidity is equivalent to the applying the rule).
Regarding claim 14, Schueller in view of Griffin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13. Schueller further teaches wherein applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays comprises modifying the second computer model of the indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0087, 0106, 0108 – “FIG. 5A illustrates a perspective view of the digital model of the hybrid IDB tray combination 40 showing the digital models of individual IDB modules 44 incorporated directly with the digital model of the orthodontic shell 42…With individual modules 44 aligned adjacently along the orthodontic shell 42, the hybrid IDB tray 40 may be adjusted in its rigidity, for instance, either its overall rigidity or along specified regions of the orthodontic shell 42 in between adjacent modules 44… the thickness of the orthodontic shell 42 itself may be adjusted, e.g., reduced, along the entire length of the orthodontic shell 42 to increase the overall flexibility of the orthodontic shell 42”; Note: in this example of applying a rule, the IDB tray model is modified to adjust rigidity and/or thickness based on the condition of a desired flexibility).
Regarding claim 15, Schueller in view of Griffin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13. Schueller further teaches wherein applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays comprises segmenting an indirect bond tray of the set of indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0126 – “FIG. 17A shows a top view of one variation where an hybrid IDB tray assembly 160 may include several hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170 which collectively form an entire hybrid IDB tray 160. The hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170 may be digitally separated along separation planes 174, 176 which divide each of the hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170 from one another. Furthermore, the separation planes 174, 176 may be located between any of the teeth and while three individual segments are shown in this variation, other variations may have the hybrid IDB tray assembly 160 separated into two separate segments or more than three segments as desired”; Note: in this example of applying a rule, the IDB tray is segmented into three segments based on the condition that three segments were desired by the operator).
Regarding claim 16, Schueller in view of Griffin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13. The embodiment of Schueller that teaches the method of claim 13 does not teach wherein applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays comprises limiting a particular number of teeth for which an indirect bond tray of the set of indirect bond trays can be used for transfer of the one or more orthodontic appliances. However, a different embodiment of Schueller teaches limiting a particular number of teeth for which an indirect bond tray of the set of indirect bond trays can be used for transfer of the one or more orthodontic appliances (Paragraph 0071 – “Because the individual modules 12 may be formed for each crown that mates to a respective tooth using, e.g., buccal, lingual, and/or occlusal surfaces, any number of individual modules 12 may be removed from the IDB tray 10 depending upon the number of brackets to be applied”; Note: in this example of applying a rule, given the condition of the number of brackets to be applied, the number of modules is limited to the number of brackets to be applied. The modules correspond to individual teeth). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schueller, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP $2143(A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scheuller to apply a rule that limits a particular number of teeth for which an indirect bond tray be used for the benefit of “reduc[ing] the amount of the material used in creating the hybrid IDB tray to save on material waste” (Schueller: Paragraph 0015). By having a rule that limits the number of modules, such as by excluding teeth that do not need brackets, less material is used in the manufacturing of the indirect bonding trays. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, Schueller in view of Griffin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13. Schueller further teaches wherein applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays comprises using a single indirect bond tray of the set of indirect bond trays for transfer of orthodontic appliances to a particular set of the teeth of the patient (Fig. 17A, Paragraph 0086, 0126 – “A treatment plan may be digitally determined for correcting any malocclusions or other issues with respect to the dentition and the appropriate locations for placement of any orthodontic appliances such as brackets for bracket-wire treatments upon the teeth may be determined. With the bracket locations determined based upon the treatment for correction of the dentition, the bracket positioning may be located upon each relevant crown with the teeth in their initial pre-treatment position based upon the scanned digital model …FIG. 17A shows a top view of one variation where an hybrid IDB tray assembly 160 may include several hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170…the separation planes 174, 176 may be located between any of the teeth and while three individual segments are shown in this variation, other variations may have the hybrid IDB tray assembly 160 separated into two separate segments or more than three segments as desired”; Note: in this example of applying a rule, a single IDB tray 166 of a set of three IDB trays is used for transfer of brackets to the four back left teeth, based on the condition that the specific separation planes were desired by the operator; see screenshot of Fig. 17A above).
Regarding claim 18, Schueller in view of Griffin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13. Schueller further teaches wherein applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays comprises assigning one or more particular teeth of the patient's teeth to a particular indirect bond tray of the set of indirect bond trays (Fig. 17A, Paragraph 0126 – “FIG. 17A shows a top view of one variation where an hybrid IDB tray assembly 160 may include several hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170…The hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170 may be digitally separated along separation planes 174, 176 which divide each of the hybrid IDB tray segments 162, 166, 170 from one another. Furthermore, the separation planes 174, 176 may be located between any of the teeth and while three individual segments are shown in this variation, other variations may have the hybrid IDB tray assembly 160 separated into two separate segments or more than three segments as desired”; Note: in this example of applying a rule, the four back left teeth are assigned to a IDB tray 166 of a set of three IDB trays by a separation plane, based on the condition that the specific separation planes were desired by the operator; see screenshot of Fig. 17A above).
Regarding claim 19, Schueller in view of Griffin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13. Schueller further teaches wherein determining, based on the dentition data and the first computer model, the geometries of the set of indirect bond trays using the set of rules designed to optimize transfer accuracy of the one or more orthodontic appliances to the one or more respective teeth of the patient comprises: determining that a condition in which a particular rule of the set of rules would apply is met; and in response to determining that the condition is met, applying the particular rule to the second computer model of the indirect bond trays (Paragraph 0087, 0107 – “FIG. 5A illustrates a perspective view of the digital model of the hybrid IDB tray combination 40…One or more regions of the hybrid IDB tray 40, e.g., along the lingual side, may be varied in thickness to have relatively thinner regions and/or relatively thicker regions such that the flexibility of the orthodontic shell 42 and hybrid IDB tray 40 may be adjusted to become more rigid and/or less rigid overall or more rigid and/or less rigid along select regions depending upon the desired flexibility”; Note: in this example, there is a condition related to the desired flexibility. If the desired flexibility is not yet reached, the rigidity of the model of the IDB tray is adjusted. In this example, adjusting the rigidity is equivalent to the applying the rule).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Suh et al. (US 20210128275 A1) teaches a method of generating a digital model of indirect bonding trays and 3D printing the indirect bonding trays. Chen et al. (CN105596094B) teaches a method of generating indirect bonding trays based on automated tooth alignment using pre-set orthodontic rules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE HAU MA whose telephone number is (571)272-2187. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571) 270-0728. 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.
/MICHELLE HAU MA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2617
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights