DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/116,448, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed application fails to provide support for the use of a “threshold of tooth movement” nor comparing to movement to such a threshold.
As such the instant claims will only receive a prior art date of 09/14/2009
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Matov et al. fails to provide for the new limitation where the tooth movement is a for a change in a first position to a second position of a tooth, however Matov does disclose where the positions are determined such as to calculate the linear velocity of a tooth through its steps and thus determines a first and second position over a period of time in order to determine the linear velocity that is then compared to an allowable maximum linear velocity, further a disclosure of determining the different between a first position and a second position is made to compare the movements to possible movements and if such movements are determined to a threshold of possible movements to not possible movements then hardware attachments are added to the tooth.
Applicant has argued that there was no citation to the accessing of the attachments or based on the shapes of the teeth however Matov does disclose the construction of the needed additional attachment volume and thus provides for the attachments while constructing and the attachment is being constructed for the characteristic of the particular tooth which requires the additional surface, the cited portion of Matov showing the different groups of teeth in a mouth and thus the groups that would be part of the iterative process of Matov are of the types studied.
As such the new limitations are provided for by the prior art of Matov et al.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 currently reads as “wherein determining a tooth movement for a first tooth Includes”, but should read “wherein determining a tooth movement for a first includes” to correct the typographical error of the capitalized “I”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1-22, 24-26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Matov et al. (US 2009/0191503 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 14, and 21, Matov discloses a method of fabricating a series of removable orthodontic aligners (title, abstract, Fig. 6 element 604), the method comprising:
receiving an initial arrangement of a dentition (Fig. 2a element 110);
generating a final arrangement of the dentition(Fig. 2a element 140);
generating and receiving a tooth movement of a series of incremental tooth movement stages to move teeth of the dentition from the initial arrangement towards the final arrangement (Fig. 2a element 150 showing Clinician receives the steps of tooth movement, paragraph [0009] lines 1-5, paragraph [0126] all disclosing that there are different stages of teeth movement each being a separate tooth model);
determining a tooth movement from a first position to a second position for a first tooth based on the series of incremental tooth movement stages (Fig. 4 element 440/402/404 disclosing the finite element analysis includes determining the linear velocity of a tooth movement thus requiring the tooth movement from a first position to second position over a unit of time, further Fig. 6 element 604-620 lay out the analysis steps to determine in any impossible movements where made, thus requiring the determining of the movement of a tooth from a first potion to a second position for a movement step);
comparing the tooth movement to a threshold of tooth movement (Fig. 4 element 470 teaching that the movement, such as the movement of the liner velocity, did not violate any constraints and thus compares the determined linear velocity to the allowed maximum linear velocity, further fig. 6 element 620 which is a comparison of the determined movements with a threshold of a movement that would be impossible without additional hardware or which would need to redefine the paths);
based on the comparing, determining to apply an attachment on the first tooth (Fig. 6 element 620 yes to 640 adding hardware with paragraph [0117] disclosing the addition of hardware includes attachments, Further Fig. 23 element 2330 leading to “greater than predefined threshold” output to no being a determination to apply an attachment, there is nothing in the claim that explains how the comparing is used to determine apply an attachment only that is in anyway based on it as provided by Matov);
accessing and applying a movement based attachment from a plurality of attachments to the first tooth (Fig. 24 element 2480, constructing the attachment including adding surface to the crown by accessing the attachment to construct), wherein the movement based attachment is applied based on the tooth movement from the first position to the second position and designed with one or more parameter values based on a force or torque associated with a force system for eliciting the determined tooth movement from the first position to the second position (Fig. 24 elements 2480 is based on force associated with the force system of 2440 and paragraph [0117] lines 7-12 disclosing the addition of the hardware attachments is use to provide the needed force system);
generate an appliance configuration for each removable orthodontic aligner in the series of removable orthodontic aligners, wherein at least a first of the appliance configurations is configured to cause a first removable orthodontic aligner in the series of removable orthodontic aligners to interact with the movement based attachment to move the first tooth from a first position in the initial arrangement towards a second position in the final arrangement (Fig. 6 element 640/642 indicating the addition of the attachment hardware and the indication to repeat outer loop at 602-604 which would generate new appliance configurations for each stage and they interact with the hardware/attachments which had been optimized);
and fabricating each removable orthodontic aligner in the series of removable orthodontic aligner (Fig. 2a element 180 the manufacturing of the orthodontics appliances, paragraph [0091] disclosing “once the treatment plan is approved, manufacturing of appliances can begin”).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Matov further discloses determining the force system for eliciting the tooth movement (Fig. 4 element 400, the FEA determines the force system).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Matov further discloses wherein generating the appliance configuration includes generating an appliance shape (Fig. 2b element 202, Fig. 4 element 406/480).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Matov further discloses, wherein determining the tooth movement for the first tooth includes determining a rotational movement (paragraph [0052] disclosing the use of “rotation of the tooth” in multiple axes).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Matov further discloses wherein the threshold of tooth movement is a rotational threshold of tooth movement (paragraph [0096] lines 11-13 indicating a threshold of movement is rotational).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Matov further discloses wherein applying the movement based attachment includes applying the movement based attachment to a position on the first tooth based on the tooth movement (paragraph [0170] all disclosing “the position of the dental attachment…are determined” after the determining of the tooth movement).
Regarding claim 7 and 20, Matov further discloses wherein applying the movement based attachment includes applying the movement optimized attachment to a position on the first tooth based on the force system (paragraph [0169] disclosing the movement vector is determined which is the movement and the force magnitude, then in paragraph [0170] the movement vector which includes the force is used to position the attachment).
Further Regarding claim 8 and 21, Matov further discloses wherein the movement based attachment is selected from the plurality of attachments based on a tooth type of the first tooth (Fig. 24 showing that the additional attachment is based on the tooth being a type needing an attachment, further figure 4 element 402 disclosing the movement based attachment calculation includes inputs based on the finite element analysis of the maximum velocity for a type of tooth, paragraph [0106] lines 14-17 disclosing attachment selection includes being based on “each kind for each tooth”).
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Matov further discloses wherein the movement based attachment is selected from the plurality of attachments based on tooth morphology(Fig. 24 showing that the additional attachment is based on the tooth having a morphology/surface shape needing an attachment).
Regarding claims 10 and further claim 14, Matov further discloses wherein each of the plurality of attachments is shaped based on characteristics of a group of patients' teeth (Table 1 showing studies input into method is based on group of patient’s teeth, groups of patient’s teeth are inputs into the finite element analysis Fig. 1e element 20 teaching that groups of paitent, demographics, where a basis of input into the determining of the movement constraints for each tooth and attachment that would be analysis in the treatment planning of Fig. 4 element 400 ).
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Matov further discloses wherein the characteristics of a group of patients' teeth include tooth size, tooth surface orientation, and tooth shape (Table 1 the teeth are characterized they their type of incisors, canines, etc., thus being of a size, shape and anatomical orientation of such types of teeth, paragraph [0130] disclosing the performance is based off the characterizations of orientation and size).
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Matov further discloses wherein the one or more parameter values based on a force or torque associated with the force system for eliciting the determined tooth movement are based on biomechanics of the dentition (paragraph [0093] disclosing the parameter values of the force/torque are based on tooth positions in a biomechanic arrangement through wax bites and the positions and structures of teeth and jaws, Fig. 7-9 showing the biomechanics of the roots and jawbone interactions).
Regarding claims 13 and 26, Matov further discloses wherein the one or more parameter values based on a force or torque associated with the force system for eliciting the determined tooth movement are based on force modeling of the removable orthodontic aligner with the biomechanics of the dentition (Fig. 11a-d showing a modeling of the removable aligner with the biomechanics of the teeth and roots, paragraph [0094] disclosing the data sets use the root structures and surrounding bone and soft tissue in ultimately the parameter values of these interactions).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 04/28/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights