DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 8/11/25.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1-7, 12 and 14-15 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1, 14 and 15 are amended. Claims 2-7 and 12 are previously presented.
5. Claims 8-11 and 13 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 112
6. Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 8/11/25, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-7, 12 and 14-15 have been withdrawn.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
7. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the amended claims now require the method to be tied to physical and kinematic constraints of a specific class of manufacturing machines namely, four- or five-axis milling or grinding machines. The applicant argues that the amended calculation limitation that calculates geometries is not a generic mathematical operation, but rather a machine-specific optimization that cannot be performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper. (Remarks: page 7)
8. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the amended limitation that states “calculating geometries for the at least two restorations, wherein the calculation of the geometries explicitly accounts for kinematic and tool-access limitations of a four- or five-axis milling or grinding machine to ensure that the at least two dental restorations are manufacturable by said milling or grinding machine, including limitations on undercuts and tool orientation” is stating what the calculation accounts are for. The limitation is not stating that a milling or grinding machine is being executed. The amended limitation is stating that the calculating of the geometries accounts for kinematic and tool-access limitations to ensure that the at least two dental restorations are manufacturable by said milling or grinding machine. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the calculation limitation of geometries for the at least two restorations, covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the recent amendment to the calculation limitation that states “wherein the calculation of the geometries explicitly accounts for kinematic and tool-access limitations of a four- or five-axis milling or grinding machine to ensure that the at least two dental restorations are manufacturable by said milling or grinding machine, including limitations on undercuts and tool orientation” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
9. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to a specific improvement in the field of dental restoration manufacturing. The applicant points to the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. and the McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. court case for support as to why the current claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. (Remarks: pages 7-8)
10. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that in the Enfish case, the Federal Circuit read the claims in light of the specification to determine that a table embodying the claimed features is directed to a “self- referential table”. The specification of the current application is different than the specification of Enfish case, where it doesn’t express how conventional databases or data storage systems are combined with the current language to describe the present invention including features that involve dental restorations.
Also, the examiner notes that in the McRO case, the court used a claim construction analysis, interpreting the claimed “first set of rules” as being limited to rules that evaluate sub-sequences consisting of multiple sequential phonemes. Under this interpretation, the court found while the claims may not recite a particular species of rules to be applied, they are still limited to a particular genus of rules (i.e., those that evaluate sequences of multiple phonemes) and therefore do not preempt all rules-based techniques for solving the problem at hand. The applicant argues that the current claim language is directed to a specific improvement in the field of dental restoration manufacturing. The applicant argues that this improvement is the automatic generation of dental restoration geometries that are guaranteed to be manufacturable by a particular class of multi-axis milling machines, taking into account their kinematic and tool-access limitations. The examiner notes that the dental restoration geometries are calculated, where under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the calculation limitation of geometries for the at least two restorations, covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, as stated above in section 8 of the current office action, the recent amendment of “wherein the calculation of the geometries explicitly accounts for kinematic and tool-access limitations of a four- or five-axis milling or grinding machine to ensure that the at least two dental restorations are manufacturable by said milling or grinding machine, including limitations on undercuts and tool orientation” also doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
11. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite a specific use of computer technology to solve a problem unique to the field of dental restoration manufacturing. The applicant argues that the claims do not merely recite the use of a computer to perform calculations; they require the computer to generate manufacturable geometries based on the real-world constraints of multi-axis milling machines. This is a practical application that improves the functioning of dental CAD/CAM systems and the manufacturing process itself. The applicant also argues that the current claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, where the recitation of explicit consideration of machine kinematics and tool-access limitations is not conventional, routine, or well-understood in the field. (Remarks: page 8)
12. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the computer is an additional element. The computer is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, the examiner does not see how the current claims are improving the functioning of a CAD/CAM system. The recent amendment is stating that the calculation of the geometries ensures that that the at least two dental restorations can be manufacturable by a milling or grinding machine. As stated above, the calculation of the geometries for the at least two restorations, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the examiner also notes that the amendment to the independent claims that now includes “the calculation of the geometries explicitly accounts for kinematic and tool-access limitations” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor does it add significantly more either alone or in combination. The examiner has found Press wood et al. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0019176) as showing evidence that dental restorations are designed in a CAD system. This can be seen in paragraphs [0007] and [0030].
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 103
13. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the prior art of record doesn’t teach the amendment to the independent claims that states “wherein the calculation of the geometries explicitly accounts for kinematic and tool-access limitations of a four- or five-axis milling or grinding machine to ensure that the at least two dental restorations are manufacturable by said milling or grinding machine, including limitations on undercuts and tool orientation” (Remarks: page 10)
14. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that in paragraphs [0048] and [0090] of the Hansen ‘113 reference, it teaches components within the CAD software that represent a facial portion and a lingual portion that can be converted into a 3D point mesh file or other format to facilitate production with a 3D printer, CNC mill. Also, the paragraphs shown above, teach that custom tools can be fabricated off of initial tooth geometry or digitally optimized tooth geometry, where the tools can be printed or milled. This demonstrates that the Hansen et al. reference teaches the limitation shown above in section 13 of the current office action.
15. The examiner’s response regarding the applicant’s arguments to the newly added limitations are shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 12 and 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1 and 14-15
Regarding step 1, claims 1 and 14-15 are directed towards a method, medium and system, which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “digitally constructing at least two dental restorations”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Also, a computer is being used to do the digitally constructing of the at least two restorations, where the computer is merely a tool to perform the existing process. Therefore, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the at least two dental restorations selected from a crown, a bridge, an inlay, and an overlay”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the digital constructions of the at least two dental restorations are used in computer simulations of insertions of the restorations while calculating possible specifications”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “calculating a specification for the insertion of the at least two restorations into a mouth of the patient”. This limitation is calculating a specification for an insertion of at least restorations into a mouth of a patient. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation of “calculating a specification for the insertion of the at least two restorations into a mouth of the patient” is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, where the limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the specification for the insertion of the at least two restorations includes i) a sequence of the at least two restorations to be inserted, the sequence defining an order of insertion of the at least two restorations”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and ii) insertion paths of the at least two restorations, each insertion path comprising a definition of an insertion direction”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “calculating geometries for the at least two restorations”. This limitation is calculating the geometries for at least two restorations”. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation of “c. calculating geometries for the at least two restorations” is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, where the limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the calculation of the geometries explicitly accounts for kinematic and tool-access limitations of a four- or five-axis milling or grinding machine to ensure that the at least two dental restorations are manufacturable by said milling or grinding machine, including limitations on undercuts and tool orientation”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “identifying potential conflicts for possible insertion sequences and insertion paths of the at least two restorations”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “identifying an optimum specification that allows for insertion of at the at least two restorations without conflicts”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “a) identifying all possible sequences for the insertion of the at least two restorations”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and b) iteratively simulating through each of the possible sequences until the optimum specification is identified” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the sequences are and how they’re associated with optimum specification. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of and displaying, on an electronic device, the optimum specification as instruction to a dental practitioner amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claim language includes the additional element of a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “and b) iteratively simulating through each of the possible sequences until the optimum specification is identified” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the sequences are and how they’re associated with optimum specification. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of and displaying, on an electronic device, the optimum specification as instruction to a dental practitioner are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the computer amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 14
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, the limitations of claim 14 recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and b) iteratively simulating through each of the possible sequences until the optimum specification is identified” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the sequences are and how they’re associated with optimum specification. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of and display, on an electronic device, the optimum specification as instruction to a dental practitioner amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim language includes the additional elements of a computer and medium. The computer and medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “and b) iteratively simulating through each of the possible sequences until the optimum specification is identified” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the sequences are and how they’re associated with optimum specification. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of display, on an electronic device, the optimum specification as instruction to a dental practitioner are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computer and medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 15
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, the limitations of claim 15 recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above, and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “and b) iteratively simulating through each of the possible sequences until the optimum specification is identified” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the sequences are and how they’re associated with optimum specification. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of displaying, on an electronic device, the optimum specification as instruction to a dental practitioner amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim language includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of and b) iteratively simulating through each of the possible sequences until the optimum specification is identified” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the sequences are and how they’re associated with optimum specification. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of display, on an electronic device, the optimum specification as instruction to a dental practitioner are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the insertion paths are straight and/or curved.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the insertion paths comprise rotations.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the insertion paths comprise insertion directions”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the calculation of the optimum specification for the insertion of the at least two restorations accounts for the at least two restorations to be inserted not being deformed”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the calculation of the optimum specification for the insertion of the al feast two restorations accounts for a passible adjustment in the construction of the geometries of the at least two restorations.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein, in the construction of the at least two restorations with abutments, the abutments are one-piece abutments”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12
Dependent claim 12 recites “wherein the method is carried out within the framework of a computer- assisted design program and/or production program for the planning and/or production of dental restorations”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1-7, 12 and 14-15 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (U.S. PGPub 2018/0021113) in view of online reference 3Shape Dental System, written by 3Shape in further view of Fisker et al. (WO 2013/164410) in further view of Steingart et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0248184).
With respect to claim 1, Hansen et al. discloses “digitally constructing at least two dental restorations” as [Hansen et al. (paragraph [0058] “In one particular example, custom tool 310 may be digitally designed using CAD software, such as solid modeling software based on the digital model. Custom tool 310 was designed to fit over teeth 100, 101 (adjacent first and second molars) and a portion of the neighboring teeth 106, 108.”, The examiner considers the at least two restorations to be the custom tool fitting over multiple teeth, where the restorations will occur on the inner teeth (100 and 101), Fig. 12];
“calculating a specification for the insertion of the at least two restorations into a mouth of the patient, wherein the specification for the insertion of the at least two restorations includes a sequence of the at least two restorations to be inserted” as [Hansen et al. (paragraph [0059] “The mold block design may be segmented into three sections (lingual portion 312, facial portion 330 and occlusal portion 350) to facilitate eventual assembly of the tool components on the teeth without geometric interference. Alternatively, additional segments may be provided such that portions of the mold for teeth 100, 101 may be separated such that each of lingual portion 312, facial portion 330 and occlusal portion 350 are divided into two or more components.”, Hansen et al. paragraph [0062] “The matrix bands were placed in the interproximal space where tooth structure of the first and second molars, teeth 100, 101, had been removed. The lingual portion 312 and facial portion 330 were assembled over teeth 100, 101 to assist with isolation and to secure the matrix bands in the proper positions (and to aid in adapting the shape of the matrix bands to the contours of the teeth 100, 101 The examiner considers the tool components being placed on the teeth to be the sequence of the at least two restorations, since the placement of the tool components on the teeth is based on the mold block design being divided into three sections (lingual portion 312, facial portion 330 and occlusal portion 350). Also, the lingual portion 312 and facial portion 330 were assembled over teeth 100, 101 to assist with isolation and to secure the matrix bands in the proper positions. This demonstrates that there’s a sequence in which at least two restorations are inserted.)];
“and insertion paths of the at least two restorations, each insertion path comprising a definition of an insertion direction for the at least two restorations to be inserted” as [Hansen et al. (paragraph [0039] “For example, the interproximal extensions of gingival surfaces 22a and 22b (FIG. 6) of facial portion 12 and lingual portion 30 may be enlarged in the mesial and distal directions such that placement of facial portion 12 and lingual portion 30 creates outward pressure on one of both of teeth 106, 108 and/or pressure on tooth 100.”)];
“calculating geometries for the at least two restorations” as [Hansen et al. (paragraph [0058] “Custom tool 310 was designed to fit over teeth 100, 101 (adjacent first and second molars) and a portion of the neighboring teeth 106, 108.”, The examiner notes that with the custom tool being designed to fit over the teeth of the patient, demonstrates that the geometries of the restorations are calculated)];
“wherein the calculation of the geometries explicitly accounts for kinematic and tool-access limitations of a four- or five-axis milling or grinding machine to ensure that the at least two dental restorations are manufacturable by said milling or grinding machine, including limitations on undercuts and tool orientation” as [Hansen et al. (paragraph [0048] “The components within the CAD software, representing facial portion 212 and lingual portion 230, may be converted into a 3D point mesh file or other format to facilitate production with a 3D printer, CNC mill, or otherwise.”, Hansen et al. paragraph [0090] “For example, custom tools can be fabricated off of initial tooth geometry or digitally optimized tooth geometry (e.g. pulling and scaling data from tooth libraries, testing in a virtual articulator). Tools can be printed or milled. Tools can be made from the full range of 3D printed materials (strength, flexibility, translucency, color). Tools can contain features to indicate or define fill level of different restorative materials (shade, fill level, physical properties). Tools/mold sections can interlock with each other or with standard components (e.g. matrix bands). Tools can be used inside or outside of the mouth. Tools can be degradable (e.g. solvent/heat) to release from the restorative material or enable undercut geometries/reduce parting lines.”)];
While Hansen et al. teaches digitally constructing at least two dental restorations and wherein the specification for the insertion of the at least two restorations includes a sequence of the at least two restorations to be inserted, Hansen et al. doesn’t explicitly disclose “planning a restorative dental treatment for a patient; the at least two dental restorations selected from a crown, a bridge, an inlay, and an overlay, wherein the digital constructions of the at least two dental restorations are used in computer simulations of insertions of the restorations while calculating possible specifications; the sequence defining an order of insertion of the at least two restorations; identifying potential conflicts for possible insertion sequences and insertion paths of the at least two restorations”
3Shape discloses “planning a restorative dental treatment for a patient” as [3Shape (Pg. 41, left col., Interactive prosthetics and implant planning, “Design esthetic and correctly placed crowns. Based on the crowns’ position, virtually place the corresponding implant while accounting for the clinical situation including bone density, and nerve positions. Optimal clinical results are achieved by iteratively updating the combination of teeth, implant and drill guide.”, 3Shape Pg. 47, right col., Complete treatment planning, “Offer additional services with OrthoAnalyzer™. Perform full treatment planning with virtual setups. Provide full treatment simulations with tools for segmentation, tooth movements and constraints, extractions and inter-proximal reduction, and articulators to evaluate treatment options”)];
“the at least two dental restorations selected from a crown, a bridge, an inlay, and an overlay” as [3Shape (Pg. 19, Freely select your model type, “With Model Builder™, you can design different types of digital lab models for crown and bridge cases - Sectioned (dies ditched) models, Sectioned (Cut) models, and Unsectioned models with the option to produce dies separately.”, 3Shape Pg. 21, middle col., Connector design and new split bridge tool for long bridge cases, “Create and edit connectors with optimized mechanical and esthetic properties and realize sophisticated designs of bridge frameworks and full anatomy bridges.”, 3Shape Pg. 23, middle col., Sophisticated crown insertion tool, “New tool for checking crown undercuts towards neighboring teeth to ensure smooth insertion of the final crown. A color map visualizes neighboring teeth-undercuts and with the new Threshold Sculpt tools, it’s easy to adjust the crown for smooth insertion and optimal interproximal contacts.”)];
“wherein the digital constructions of the at least two dental restorations are used in computer simulations of insertions of the restorations while calculating possible specifications” as [3Shape (Pg. 19, Freely select your model type, “With Model Builder™, you can design different types of digital lab models for crown and bridge cases - Sectioned (dies ditched) models, Sectioned (Cut) models, and Unsectioned models with the option to produce dies separately.”, 3Shape Pg. 21, middle col., Connector design and new split bridge tool for long bridge cases, “Create and edit connectors with optimized mechanical and esthetic properties and realize sophisticated designs of bridge frameworks and full anatomy bridges.”, 3Shape Pg. 23, middle col., Sophisticated crown insertion tool, “New tool for checking crown undercuts towards neighboring teeth to ensure smooth insertion of the final crown. A color map visualizes neighboring teeth-undercuts and with the new Threshold Sculpt tools, it’s easy to adjust the crown for smooth insertion and optimal interproximal contacts.”, By having designs for the bridge frameworks and crowns demonstrates that there are treatment plans (specifications) for the insertions of a crown and bridge)];
“the sequence defining an order of insertion of the at least two restorations” as [3Shape (Pg. 28, right col., Sophisticated Inlay & Maryland Bridges, “Dental System’s™ flexible and productive Inlay, Onlay, Veneer modeling tools can be applied for creating multi-unit as well as single-unit designs.”, The examiner considers multi-unit designs to be the sequence of insertion for at least tow restorations, since there are multiple restorations within a multi-unit design)];
“identifying potential conflicts for possible insertion sequences and insertion paths of the at least two restorations” as [3Shape (Pg. 19, middle col., Cut model with final restoration, “New option allows users to cut the digital model with the final crown design to ensure the restoration does not collide with the model’s gingiva area. For example, cut the model with the abutment emergence profile.”)];
Hansen et al. and 3Shape are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the insertion of restorations in a patient’s mouth.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hansen et al. of digitally constructing at least two dental restorations and wherein the specification for the insertion of the at least two restorations includes a sequence of the at least two restorations to be inserted by incorporating planning a restorative dental treatment for a patient; the at least two dental restorations selected from a crown, a bridge, an inlay, and an overlay, wherein the digital constructions of the at least two dental restorations are used in computer simulations of insertions of the restorations while calculating possible specifications; the sequence defining an order of insertion of the at least two restorations; identifying potential conflicts for possible insertion sequences and insertion paths of the at least two restorations as taught by 3Shape for the purpose of designing restorations through a CAD design.
Hansen et al. in view of 3Shape teaches planning a restorative dental treatment for a patient; the at least two dental restorations selected from a crown, a bridge, an inlay, and an overlay, wherein the digital constructions of the at least two dental restorations are used in computer simulations of insertions of the restorations while calculating possible specifications; the sequence defining an order of insertion of the at least two restorations; identifying potential conflicts for possible insertion sequences and insertion paths of the at least two restorations.
The motivation for doing so would have been because 3Shape teaches that by handling restorations digitally starting from impression, through CAD design to the manufacturing process, allows there to be hardly any manual finishing, which allows labs to be more productive, offer more products and apply new materials (3Shape Pg. 3, The full digital service lab, “The dental lab industry is going digital faster than most have anticipated, etc.”).
While the combination of Hansen et al. and 3Shape planning a restorative dental treatment for a patient, Hansen et al. and 3Shape do not explicitly disclose A computer-implemented method for planning a restorative dental treatment for a patient”
Fisker et al. discloses “A computer-implemented method for planning a restorative dental treatment for a patient” as [Fisker et al. (Pg. 2 lines 8-11, “One object of the invention is to provide a method for designing a virtual model of a dental restoration such that a dental restoration manufactured from the virtual 3D model can be inserted at a target site of the patient's set of teeth.”)];
Hansen et al., 3Shape and Fisker et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the insertion of restorations in a patient’s mouth.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hansen et al. and 3Shape of planning a restorative dental treatment for a patient by incorporating a computer-implemented method for planning a restorative dental treatment for a patient as taught by Fisker et al. for the purpose of designing a virtual 3D model of a dental restoration for a patient’s set of teeth.
Hansen et al. in view of 3Shape in further view of Fisker et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for planning a restorative dental treatment for a patient.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Fisker et al. teaches that by designing a virtual 3D model of a dental restoration for a patient’s set of teeth, the ability to identify whether there’s going to be a collision at the target site with the dental restoration can be accomplished in order to save time in the insertion of the restoration (Fisker et al. (Pg. 1 lines 21-31, “In some cases, a dental restoration manufactured from a virtual 3D, etc.”, Pg. 2 lines 13-17, “One object of the invention is to provide a method for designing a virtual, etc.”)];
While the combination of Hansen et al., 3Shape and Fisker et al. teaches displaying on an electronic device, indications of changes in the shape of a patient’s tooth, Hansen et al., 3Shape and Fisker et al. do not explicitly disclose “identifying an optimum specification that allows for insertion of at the at least two restorations without conflicts by a) identifying all possible sequences for the insertion of the at least two restorations, and b) iteratively simulating through each of the possible sequences until the optimum specification is identified; and displaying, on an electronic device, the optimum specification as instruction to a dental practitioner”
Steingart et al. discloses “identifying an optimum specification that allows for insertion of at the at least two restorations without conflicts by a) identifying all possible sequences for the insertion of the at least two restorations, and b) iteratively simulating through each of the possible sequences until the optimum specification is identified” as [Steingart et al. (paragraph [0112] “The system provides the concept of a "virtual refractory model" where the original, unmodified stone is scanned, and software tools are provided to apply virtual "block-out" wax. This can be done manually, as with the Filler Tools described herein, or through a Virtual Survey process, in which a "path of insertion" is chosen with the aid of a color-mapped undercut visualizer, and blocked-out automatically. A similar provision is available for crown and bridge workflows as well”, Steingart et al. (paragraph [0143] “The virtual refractory model described in this disclosure may be extended to crown, coping and bridge framework workflows. The scanned model may be assessed by the end user; a path of insertion may be selected with aid from a variety of visualization techniques such as color coding the amount of undercut. Furthermore the undercuts may then be fixed automatically based on the path of insertion.”, Steingart et al. (paragraph [0224] “To change the path of insertion with the haptic device, the user first touches a point either on the scanned model of the plaster cast or in the space surrounding it, defining a radius from the center of the model, and then drags in a spherical motion. In this mode, the haptic device movement is constrained to a spherical shell that gives the physical sensation of a Virtual Haptic Trackball, allowing precise rotation of the model on all axes. As the model is rotated, the path of insertion stays fixed with respect to the view, but changes with respect to the model.”, The examiner considers the sequences of insertion paths to be the different paths of insertion that changes when the model is rotated)];
“and displaying, on an electronic device, the optimum specification as instruction to a dental practitioner” as [Steingart et al. (paragraph [0021] “In various embodiments, the processor executes said instructions to automatically identify and display the undercut portion of the model graphically on a graphical interface based at least in part on a user-selected insertion path, thereby distinguishing the undercut portion from a non-undercut portion of the model. The undercut portion may be displayed with contrasting colors based on degree of undercut. The processor may execute said instructions to display said model in real time as the user adds virtual block-out wax via the user interface; the reduction of the undercut portion may be displayed to the user in real time as the user adds virtual block-out wax.”, Steingart et al. paragraph [0036] “In various embodiments, the workflow module is configured to display a sequence of dialog boxes to the user, wherein each dialog box in the sequence includes a stepwise list of instructions in performing a subtask of the prescribed workflow. The three-dimensional dental restoration may be a member selected from the group consisting of a partial, a partial framework, a bridge, a coping, a veneer, a multi-unit bridge, a prosthetic tooth, prosthetic teeth, a pontic, an implant, an implant abutment, and an implant bar.”)];
Hansen et al., 3Shape, Fisker et al. and Steingart et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the insertion of restorations in a patient’s mouth.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hansen et al., 3Shape and Fisker et al. of displaying on an electronic device, indications of changes in the shape of a patient’s tooth by incorporating identifying an optimum specification that allows for insertion of at the at least two restorations without conflicts by a) identifying all possible sequences for the insertion of the at least two restorations, and b) iteratively simulating through each of the possible sequences until the optimum specification is identified; and displaying, on an electronic device, the optimum specification as i