DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed 17 November 2025.
Claims 37-51 are pending. Claim 37 is an independent claim.
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 37-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1; MPEP 2106.03). If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed toward a judicial exception (Step 2A; MPEP 2106.04). This step is broken into two prongs.
The first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1) determines whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined at Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2; MPEP 2106.04). The second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2) determines whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim is a patent-eligible exception (Step 2B; MPEP 2106.05).
If an abstract idea is present int the claim, in order to recite statutory subject matter, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see: 2019 PEG).
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 37-51 are directed toward a method (process). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 37:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to claim 37, the claims recite:
receiving a training set of patient case data which includes one or more representations of malocclusions and ground truth data representing a final setup state for the teeth of one or more patients, wherein the final setup state represents a final state of the teeth after orthodontic treatment and malocclusion data comprises one or more 3D models of teeth in an initial state (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses receiving a set of data for observation by a user for training the user to evaluate an initial state of teeth for determining a final state)
generating, based at least in part on one or more interrelations between positions or orientations of one or more teeth in an initial state, a predicted output final setup state (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses receiving a set of data for evaluating interrelations between positions/orientations of an initial state of teeth to determine a predicted final state)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the additional element:
one or more computer processors
This element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim discloses the additional element:
receiving… digital 3D models
This element amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Finally, the claims disclose the additional elements:
one or more computer processors using a deep neural network configured to process interrelations between positions and orientations of individual teeth and trained using supervised learning
computing, by the one or more computer processors, a loss to quantify the distance between a generated output final setup state and the ground truth data representing the final state, wherein the loss comprises a differentiable scoring function based on positional and rotational metrics of teeth
using, by the one or more computer processors, the loss to train, at least in part, the deep neural network by iteratively perturbing tooth positions and updating weights based on the scoring function
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the additional element:
one or more computer processors
This element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim discloses the additional element:
receiving… digital 3D models
This element amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Finally, the claims disclose the additional elements:
one or more computer processors using a deep neural network configured to process interrelations between positions and orientations of individual teeth and trained using supervised learning
computing, by the one or more computer processors, a loss to quantify the distance between a generated output final setup state and the ground truth data representing the final state, wherein the loss comprises a differentiable scoring function based on positional and rotational metrics of teeth
using, by the one or more computer processors, the loss to train, at least in part, the deep neural network by iteratively perturbing tooth positions and updating weights based on the scoring function
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 38:
With respect to dependent claim 38, the claim depends upon independent claim 37. The analysis of claim 37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 38, the claim recites the element:
wherein the ground truth data represents the final setup state of the patients teeth (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses receiving a set of data for evaluating interrelations between positions/orientations of an initial state of teeth to determine a predicted final state)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claim discloses the additional element:
receiving… digital 3D models
This element amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claim discloses the additional element:
receiving… digital 3D models
This element amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 39:
With respect to dependent claim 39, the claim depends upon independent claim 37. The analysis of claim 37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 39, the claim recites the element:
wherein the ground truth data represents the final setup state of the patient’s teeth and comprises one or more ground truth images (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses receiving a set of data for evaluating interrelations between positions/orientations of an initial state of teeth to determine a predicted final state)
Claim 40:
With respect to dependent claim 40, the claim depends upon independent claim 37. The analysis of claim 37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the additional element:
wherein the deep neural network is trained to model the mapping between one or more malocclusions and respective final states
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the additional element:
wherein the deep neural network is trained to model the mapping between one or more malocclusions and respective final states
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 41:
With respect to dependent claim 41, the claim depends upon independent claim 37. The analysis of claim 37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the additional element:
wherein the deep neural network is a convolutional auto-encoder (CAE)
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the additional element:
wherein the deep neural network is a convolutional auto-encoder (CAE)
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 42:
With respect to dependent claim 42, the claim depends upon independent claim 37. The analysis of claim 37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the additional element:
wherein the loss function is defined as one or more of: a single metric or score, a linear combination of metrics or scores, or a non-linear combination of metrics or scores, or the continuous output of a machine learning classifier
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the additional element:
wherein the loss function is defined as one or more of: a single metric or score, a linear combination of metrics or scores, or a non-linear combination of metrics or scores, or the continuous output of a machine learning classifier
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 43:
With respect to dependent claim 43, the claim depends upon independent claim 37. The analysis of claim 37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claim discloses the additional element:
wherein the digital 3D models of teeth are based on one or more intra-oral 3D scans
This element amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claim discloses the additional element:
wherein the digital 3D models of teeth are based on one or more intra-oral 3D scans
This element amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 44:
With respect to dependent claim 44, the claim depends upon dependent claim 42. The analysis of claim 42 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 44, the claim recites the element:
wherein the metric comprises at least one of: alignment, edge alignment, buccolingual inclination, class relationship, leveling, mesial tilt, distal tilt, Torque, relative midline, absolute midline, one or more occlusal contacts, overbite, canine overbite, overjet, spacing, collision, contact, crossbite, bite symmetry, arch form shape, arch form symmetry, inter-arch contact, arch form parallelism, arch form expansion, golden proportions metric, Bolton ratio, or curve of spee (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses receiving a set of data for evaluating interrelations between positions/orientations of an initial state of teeth to determine a predicted final state)
Claim 45:
With respect to dependent claim 45, the claim depends upon dependent claim 42. The analysis of claim 42 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the additional element:
wherein the score indicates the deviation of one or more metrics from an ideal final setup
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the additional element:
wherein the score indicates the deviation of one or more metrics from an ideal final setup
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 46:
With respect to dependent claim 46, the claim depends upon independent claim 37. The analysis of claim 37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to claim 46, the claims recite:
generating, two or more candidate final setups (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses receiving a set of data for observation by a user for training the user to evaluate an initial state of teeth for determining a plurality of candidate final states)
selecting, a final setup from the generated candidate setups (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses evaluating a plurality of candidate final states to select a final state)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the additional element:
one or more computer processors
This element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the additional element:
one or more computer processors
This element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 47:
With respect to dependent claim 47, the claim depends upon dependent claim 42. The analysis of claim 42 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the additional element:
displaying, by the one or more computer processors and on an electronic display device, the one or more metrics, the one or more scores, or the one or more machine learning classifier outputs in relative proximity to the final setup
These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the additional element:
displaying, by the one or more computer processors and on an electronic display device, the one or more metrics, the one or more scores, or the one or more machine learning classifier outputs in relative proximity to the final setup
These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 48:
With respect to dependent claim 48, the claim depends upon independent claim 37. The analysis of claim 37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to claim 48, the claims recite:
wherein the training set of patient case data includes one or more of: tooth positions for every tooth in a maloccluded state, information about tooth landmarks, information about tooth coordinate systems, information about extractions, information about teeth whose positions are fixed during treatment, information about desired interproximal reduction, information about limits on tooth movements, information about areas of focus, information about orthodontic qualities that should be maintained or improved, information about desired treatment duration, or information about desired tooth or arch form changes (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses receiving a set of data including specific patient case data for observation by a user for training the user to evaluate an initial state of teeth for determining a plurality of candidate final states)
Claim 49:
With respect to dependent claim 49, the claim depends upon independent claim 37. The analysis of claim 37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to claim 49, the claims recite:
wherein malocclusion data contains position and orientation information, wherein the position and orientation information is based at least in part on a coordinate system used for an arch form included in the patient case data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses receiving a set of data including specific patient case data for observation by a user for training the user to evaluate an initial state of teeth for determining a plurality of candidate final states)
Claim 50:
With respect to dependent claim 50, the claim depends upon independent claim 37. The analysis of claim 37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to claim 50, the claims recite:
wherein the generated output final setup state includes at least one of: a position of one or more teeth, an orientation of one or more teeth, or an interproxial reduction quantity for one or more teeth (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses receiving a set of data including specific patient case data for observation by a user for training the user to evaluate an initial state of teeth for determining a plurality of candidate final states)
Claim 51:
With respect to dependent claim 51, the claim depends upon independent claim 37. The analysis of claim 37 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to claim 51, the claims recite:
wherein any of the single metric or score, the linear combination of metrics or scores, or the non-linear combination of metrics or scores, specifies, at least in part collisions, inter-penetrations, or gaps between teeth as teeth are moved (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses receiving a set of data including specific patient case data for observation by a user for training the user to evaluate an initial state of teeth for determining a plurality of candidate final states)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 37-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US 7970628, patented 28 June 2011, hereafter Kuo) and further in view of Raviv et al. (US 2018/0218256, published 2 August 2018, hereafter Raviv) and further in view of Mason et al. (US 2016/0135925, published 19 May 2016, hereafter Mason) and further in view of Al Hasan et al. (WO 2018/046452, published 15 March 2018, hereafter Al Hasan) and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2019/0026917, filed 18 July 2018).
As per independent claim 37, Kuo discloses a computer-implemented method of generating a final setup for orthodontic treatment using supervised machine learning, comprising:
receiving, by one or more computer processors, a training set of patient case data (column 8, lines 22-56) which includes one or more representations of malocclusion and ground truth data representing a final setup state for teeth of one or more patients (column 1, line 60- column 2, line 3), wherein the final setup state represents a final state of the teeth after orthodontic treatment (column 8, lines 22-56) and the malocclusion data comprises one or more digital 3D models of teeth in an initial state (column 5, lines 26-35)
generating a predicted output final setup state (column 8, lines 22-56)
computing, by the one or more computer processors, a loss to quantify the distance between a generated output final setup state and the ground truth data representing the final state (column 6, lines 4-14)
using, by the one or more computer processors, the loss to train at least in part, the deep neural network (column 6, lines 15-29; column 8, lines 22-56)
Kuo fails to specifically disclose generating, by the one or more computer processors using a deep neural network, a predicted output.
However, Raviv, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward training a neural network, discloses training a deep neural network for generating behaviors (paragraphs 0013-0016). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Raviv with Kuo, with a reasonable expectation success, as it would have allowed for training an artificial neural network based upon received behaviors. This would have provided the user with the advantage of using received data for training the neural network.
Further, Kuo fails to specifically disclose generating, based at least in part on one or more interrelations between positions or orientations of one or more teeth in an initial state, a predicted output final setup state.
However, Mason, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predicting future orthodontic conditions in a patient, discloses generating, based at least in part on one or more interrelations between positions or orientations of one or more teeth in an initial state, a predicted output final setup state (paragraphs 0084 and 0107: Here, a prediction is generated for a final state (Figure 3, item 314) based upon an initial state (Figure 3, item 302). Further, the initial and final states are based upon the movement of a set of teeth. This includes the positions of each tooth (paragraph 0108) in the set of teeth at various time points). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Mason with Kuo-Raviv, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for analyzing and predicting the movement of a set of teeth (Mason: paragraph 0111). This would have allowed a user to view interactions between the teeth as movement is performed.
Kuo fails to specifically disclose:
a deep neural network configured to process interrelations between positions and orientations of individual teeth and trained using supervised learning
computing a loss, wherein the loss comprises a differentiable scoring function based on positional and rotational metrics of teeth
iteratively perturbing tooth positions and updating weights based on the scoring function
However, Al Hasan, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward diagnostic inferencing with a multimodal deep memory network, discloses:
a deep neural network using supervised learning (paragraph 0014: Here, a deep learning model uses image data inputs for providing one or more diagnoses for use by a clinician)
iteratively perturbing and updating weights based on the scoring function (paragraph 0039: Here, the trained model includes key embeddings and value embeddings that are weighted at least partially based on an amount of attention given to a portion of the medical data from which the key embeddings and value embeddings are generated. Further, the weights are classified and used over multiple iterations)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Al Hasan’s deep learning network with Mason’s interrelations between positions and orientations of individual teeth (paragraphs 0062 and 0065-0067), with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for performing learning on a set of clinician data (Al Hasan: paragraph 0014) wherein the clinician data is a set of teeth positions and orientations (Mason: paragraphs 0062 and 0065-0067).
Finally, Liao, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward calculating a score, discloses computing a loss, wherein the loss comprises a differentiable scoring function based on positional and rotational metrics of teeth (paragraphs 0095 and 0110: Here, a score function is calculated based upon a ground truth distance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Liao with Kuo-Raviv-Mason-Al Hasan, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for computing a score based upon ground truth distance for 3D models (Liao: paragraph 0110).
As per dependent claim 38, Kuo discloses wherein ground truth data represents the final setup state of the patient’s teeth and comprises one or more digital 3D models of teeth (column 4, lines 53-59).
As per dependent claim 39, Kuo discloses wherein ground truth data represents the final setup state of the patient’s teeth and comprises one or more ground truth images (column 6, lines 15-40).
As per dependent claim 40, Kuo discloses one or more malocclusions and respective final states (column 8, lines 22-56). Kuo fails to specifically disclose wherein the deep neural network is trained to model the mapping. However, Raviv, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward training a neural network, discloses training a deep neural network for generating behaviors (paragraphs 0013-0016). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Raviv with Kuo, with a reasonable expectation success, as it would have allowed for training an artificial neural network based upon received behaviors. This would have provided the user with the advantage of using received data for training the neural network.
As per dependent claim 41, Kuo discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 37, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Kuo fails to specifically disclose wherein the deep neural network is a convolutional auto-encoder (CAE). However, Raviv, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward training a neural network, discloses wherein the deep neural network is a convolutional auto-encoder (CAE) (paragraphs 0013-0016). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Raviv with Kuo, with a reasonable expectation success, as it would have allowed for training an artificial neural network based upon received behaviors. This would have provided the user with the advantage of using received data for training the neural network.
As per dependent claim 42, Kuo discloses wherein the loss function is defined as one or more of: a single metric or score, a linear combination of metrics or scores, or a non-linear combination of metrics or scores, or the continuous output of a machine learning classifier (Tables 1-4: Here, a score is associated with each tooth and process).
As per dependent claim 43, Kuo discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 37, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Kuo discloses digital imaging based on one or more intra-oral scans (column 12, line 60- column 13, line 3) and the use of a 3D model (column 5, lines 26-35). However, Kuo fails to specifically disclose the 3D model of teeth being based on one or more intra-oral 3D scans.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to generate a 3D model from a 3D scan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with Kuo’s teaching of generating a 3D model of teeth from an intra-oral scan, as it would have allowed for creating a 3D model from a 3D intra-oral scan. This would have provided the user with the advantage of creating a 3D model from a 3D scan, thereby eliminating multiple translation steps between the scan and creation of the model. This would have provided sufficient time and processing savings to a user.
As per dependent claim 44, Kuo discloses wherein the metric comprises at least one of: alignment, edge alignment, buccolingual inclination, class relationship, leveling, mesial tilt, distal tilt, Torque, relative midline, absolute midline, ore or more occlusal contacts, overbite, canine overbite, overjet, spacing, collision, contact, crossbite, bite symmetry, arch form shape, arch form symmetry, inter-arch contact, arch form parallelism, arch form expansion, golden proportions metric, Bolton ratio, or curve of spee (column 5, lines 16-25).
As per dependent claim 45, Kuo discloses wherein the score indicates the deviation of one or more metrics from an ideal final step (column 2, lines 4-15).
As per dependent claim 46, Kuo discloses generating, but the one or more computer processors, two or more candidate final setups (column 10, line 62- column 11, line 3) and selecting, by the one or more computer processors, a final setup from the generated candidate setups (column 11, lines 4-15).
As per dependent claim 47, Kuo discloses further comprising displaying, by the one or more computer processors and on an electronic display device, the one or more metrics, the one or more scores, or the one or more machine learning classifier outputs is relative proximity to the final step (Figure 37; column 38, lines 23-36).
As per dependent claim 48, Kuo discloses wherein the training set of patient case data includes one or more of: tooth positions for every tooth in a maloccluded state, information about tooth landmarks, information about tooth coordinate systems, information about extractions, information about teeth whose positions are fixed during treatment, information about desired interproximal reduction, information about limits on tooth movements, information about areas of focus, information about orthodontic qualities that should be maintained or improved, information about desired treatment duration, or information about desired tooth or arch form changes (Tables 1-4).
As per dependent claim 49, Kuo discloses wherein malocclusion data contains position and orientation information, wherein the position and orientation information is based at least in part on a coordinate system used for an arch form included in the patient case data (Tables 1-4).
As per dependent claim 50, Kuo discloses wherein the generated output final setup state includes at least one of: a position of one or more teeth, an orientation of one or more teeth, or an interproxial reduction quantity for one or more teeth (column 13, lines 27-43).
As per dependent claim 51, Kuo discloses any of the single metric or score, the linear combination of metrics scores, or the non-linear combination of scores (Tables 1-4: Here, a score is associated with each tooth and process).
Kuo fails to specifically disclose the scores specifying at least in part collisions, inter-penetrations, or gaps between teeth as teeth are moved. However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to track collisions, inter-penetrations, or gaps between teeth as teeth are moved. This would have provided a user with data values for various metrics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with Kuo, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have facilitated tracking changes within the metrics as orthodontia are applied to teeth. This would have provided information to improve the use of orthodontia.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kuo-Raviv-Mason-Al Hasan-Liao.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims recite a method that cannot be practically performed in the human mind (page 6). To support this position, the applicant argues that the claims are intrinsically tied to the operation of a machine-learning enabled computer and realize specific technical improvements in the field of computer-aided orthodontic treatment planning (page 7).
First, the examiner notes that the elements related to a machine learning model are not alleged to be implemented in the human mind. Instead, these elements are considered under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B. Specifically, these additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, when considering whether the claims recite an improvement, it must be determined the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution to the output (MPEP 2106.05(a)). In this instance, the claim appears to disclose the instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. For these reasons, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hannun et al. (US 2016/0171974): Discloses computing a loss measure based upon a ground truth (claim 1)
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 KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128