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 .
Responsive to the communication dated 11/19/2025
Claims 1, 5-6, and 9-17 are presented for examination
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments - 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims provide a “significant solution” to manufacturing dental restorations with a more natural appearance, because the claims use mathematic concepts it “applies them in a narrowly tailored context to solve a technical problem in dental manufacturing” and that the claims do not recite a mental process.
Examiner responds by firstly explaining that the alleged improvement of improving the accuracy of the shade matching is solely furnished by the abstract idea, particularly the deviation determination limitation which, as amended, is a mathematic calculation, which is an abstract idea. In other words the alleged increase in accuracy is afforded solely by the use of a mathematic calculation rather than pure visual judgement to determine the different between the target color and the current color of the restoration. As per the MPEP, an inventive concept or improvement to technology cannot be provided solely by the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I): An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
Despite applicant’s arguments to the contrary, the claims do not merely use underlying mathematic concepts, rather the use of mathematic calculations is explicitly recited and is further the core concept of the claimed invention. The step of “determining (
PNG
media_image1.png
7
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
103) a deviation (AEs,1) between a target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I) , wherein the deviation is calculated by summing up the differences in color values of pixels along comparison lines 207;” is clearly a mathematic calculation, being an equation recited in textual form. See (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(B) “ claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”)
Further, as to the applicant’s arguments that the mathematical operations are because “it applies them in a narrowly tailored context to solve a technical problem in dental manufacturing” the examiner notes that merely attempting to limit a particular field of use is not sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application or provide significantly more. See (MPEP 2106.05(h) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to 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.” … “iii. Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Flook, 437 U.S. at 595, 198 USPQ at 199; … vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” In other words, limiting the use of such a calculation specifically to the field of dental color matching for the purpose of determining the numeric difference a current color and target color of a dental restoration is not sufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application/provide significantly more.
As to the elements identified as mental processes:
" generating a digital model; rendering based on optical properties; “
Generating, rendering, and creating a dataset from a model of a tooth is a mental process that is equivalent to imagining and then drawing a rendition of a tooth, as with a pencil and paper, and writing a representation of data that reflects the properties of the drawn tooth, such as a table of physical dimensions or a color value of the tooth in a particular region.
Doing this digitally merely amounts to mere instructions to apply this judicial exception on a generic computer.
Altering regions iteratively
Altering the model in such a manner is a mental process equivalent to repeatedly modifying and redrawing the tooth and its associated property representations until the properties of the drawn tooth more closely match the measured properties of the tooth defined by the target data set. Specifying that the alteration of parts of the model includes being deformed in certain directions merely clarifies what modifications are included in this redrawing process.
Determining the new deviation after alteration to mentally judge its match to the target is merely a mathematic calculation, (i.e. summing the differences of numeric color values), followed by a mental judgement of the result of that calculation. For example, if the calculated deviation is small, a person would judge that the two tooth representations are similar in color and vice versa if the deviation is large.
Performing such a process iteratively does not make it so such a process cannot be performed in the human mind using a simple physical aide such as a pencil and paper. For example, a person new to drawing attempting to draw a very straight line might attempt to draw such a near-perfectly straight line by making an attempt, judging if there were mistakes, and trying again and again until they are satisfied with straightness of the drawn line, perhaps including visual comparison with objects such as rulers or the edge of a wooden board.
As to the applicant’s citing of Visual Memory and McRO, neither of these are analogous to the present claims.
For Visual Memory, the claims were directed to an enhanced computer memory system, wherein the invention was directed to the actual functioning of a memory system, not just the generic use of a general purpose computer components, as presented in the present claims.
For McRO, it is important to note that the system was found eligible because it automated a task that was previously impossible to automate due to its subjective nature in a very particular. In contrast, the claimed invention is automated in a manner functionally identical to how it could be performed mentally/mathematically at a very high level of generality.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application/provide an inventive concept for a variety of reasons.
Examiner responds to each:
To the applicant’s arguments that the accuracy of dental restorations is improved by the process, this alleged accuracy increase is solely due to the abstract idea, i.e. the mental/mathematic process of creating a design for the tooth, mathematically calculating the difference between the color of the design and the target color, and repeatedly mentally re-designing with new colors corresponding to materials until the color of the design is judged to match the target color. This alleged improvement is not facilitated by the high-level use of generic digital models and the use of a general purpose computer, nor the production of the design in a generic way after the performance of the main process; it is facilitated solely by the abstract idea itself. As per the MPEP, an inventive concept or improvement to technology cannot be provided solely by the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I): An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
To further the clarify, the use of the computer elements is not recited to a level of particularity that would suggest it is anything more than the generic use of general purpose computer elements; elements such as specifying the use of “digital” dental models are recited at such a high level of generality that they could comprise nearly any kind of modelling technique.
The courts have found that such mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983”)
Similarly, the production of the restoration also has very little particularity and contains no language that would suggest that it comprises anything more than generic manufacturing techniques. Further, this manufacturing step is not the inventive thrust of the claims, rather the claims are directed to a method of designing a dental model and matching colors. This production step is effectively equivalent to a final step of cutting hair after an abstract process, to which the claims are directed, describing a method for designing hair styles.
A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
As mentioned before, performing such a process iteratively does not make it so such a process cannot be performed in the human mind using a simple physical aide such as a pencil and paper. For example, a person new to drawing attempting to draw a very straight line might attempt to draw such a near-perfectly straight line by making an attempt, judging if there were mistakes, and trying again and again until they are satisfied with straightness of the drawn line, perhaps including visual comparison with objects such as rulers or the edge of a wooden board. Being part of the abstract idea itself, the use of iterative modification cannot integrate the claims into a practical application nor provide significantly more.
The use of optical properties merely clarifies what data is considered in the mental process of rendering/altering the model. For example, materials with a high absorption coefficients may have a darker color than materials with lower absorption coefficients, materials with different scattering coefficients may have different reflective properties, etc. and could be drawn accordingly. Therefore, the use of such properties is merely part of the abstract idea itself and subsequently cannot provide a basis for integration into a practical application/ significantly more.
Additionally, specifying that the alteration of parts of the model includes being deformed in certain directions merely clarifies what modifications are included in this redrawing process, and is therefore merely part of the abstract idea itself and subsequently cannot provide a basis for integration into a practical application/ significantly more.
Further, in regards to the applicant’s arguments relating to claims being patent-eligible when they improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, it should be noted once again that the alleged “improvement” afforded by the system, i.e. improving the accuracy of dental restorations by making them more visually similar to the target tooth, is solely furnished by the abstract idea itself, i.e. the mental/mathematic process of creating a design for the tooth, mathematically calculating the difference between the color of the design and the target color, and repeatedly mentally re-designing with new colors corresponding to materials until the color of the design is judged to match the target color. As per the MPEP, an inventive concept or improvement to technology cannot be provided solely by the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I): An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
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, 5-6, and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
A method of producing a dental restoration (100), comprising the steps: generating (S101) a digital dental model (200) having a first spatial region (203-1) in which a first restoration material (201-1) is arranged and a second spatial region (203-2) in which a second restoration material (201-2) is arranged; rendering (S102) of the digital dental model (200) to generate an actual data set (DS-I) representing the optical properties comprising an absorption coefficient, a scattering coefficient and a refractive index of the digital dental model (200);
Generating, rendering, and creating a dataset from a model of a tooth is a mental process that is equivalent to imagining and then drawing a rendition of a tooth, as with a pencil and paper, and writing a representation of data that reflects the properties of the drawn tooth, such as a table of physical dimensions or a color value of the tooth in a particular region.
Specifying the use of particular optical properties merely clarifies what data is considered in the mental process of rendering the model. For example, materials with a high absorption coefficients may have a darker color than materials with lower absorption coefficients, materials with different scattering coefficients may have different reflective properties, etc. and could be drawn accordingly.
Doing this digitally merely amounts to mere instructions to apply this judicial exception on a generic computer.
altering (S104) the first spatial region (203 -1) and/or second spatial region (203-2) to obtain a smaller deviation (AEs,1) between the acquired target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I) of a re-rendered digital dental model (200) wherein the altering is performed such that the first spatial region is an outer region of the dental model which is deformed inwardly and the second spatial region is an inner region of the dental model which is deformed outwardly;
Altering the model in such a manner is a mental process equivalent to repeatedly modifying and redrawing the tooth and its associated property representations until the properties of the drawn tooth more closely match the measured properties of the tooth defined by the target data set. Specifying that the alteration of parts of the model includes being deformed in certain directions merely clarifies what modifications are included in this redrawing process.
Determining the new deviation after alteration to mentally judge its match to the target is merely a mathematic calculation, as analyzed below, followed by a mental judgement of the result of that calculation. For example, if the calculated deviation is small, a person would judge that the two tooth representations are similar in color and vice versa if the deviation is large.
The claim also recites a mathematic process, specifically:
determining (S103) a deviation (AEs,1) between a target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I) , wherein the deviation is calculated by summing up the differences in color values of pixels along comparison lines 207;
Calculating a deviation in such a manner by using a mathematic formula (i.e. summing the differences of numeric color values) is a mathematic process, and therefore a mathematic concept.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Post-Solution Activity:
producing (S105) the dental restoration (100) based on the digital dental model (200) with the smaller deviation wherein the production process involves additive manufacturing techniques to fabricate the dental restoration
This element merely acts on the results of the previous abstract steps. A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
Mere Instructions to Apply:
A method of producing a dental restoration (100), comprising the steps: generating (S101) a digital dental model (200) having a first spatial region (203-1) in which a first restoration material (201-1) is arranged and a second spatial region (203-2) in which a second restoration material (201-2) is arranged; rendering (S102) of the digital dental model (200) to generate an actual data set (DS-I) representing the optical properties comprising an absorption coefficient, a scattering coefficient and a refractive index of the digital dental model (200); determining (S103) a deviation (AEs,1) between a target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I) , wherein the deviation is calculated by summing up the differences in color values of pixels along comparison lines 207; altering (S104) the first spatial region (203 -1) and/or second spatial region (203-2) to obtain a smaller deviation (AEs,1) between the acquired target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I) of a re-rendered digital dental model (200) wherein the altering is performed such that the first spatial region is an outer region of the dental model which is deformed inwardly and the second spatial region is an inner region of the dental model which is deformed outwardly;
As explained above, creating this dental model is a combination mental/mathematic process. Specifying that it is a digital dental model merely implements this mental/mathematic process on a generic computer, and therefore amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitations are mere data gathering or post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity), or a general purpose computer and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and
post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Post-Solution Activity:
producing (S105) the dental restoration (100) based on the digital dental model (200) with the smaller deviation wherein the production process involves additive manufacturing techniques to fabricate the dental restoration
This element merely acts on the results of the previous abstract steps. A claim element that merely acts on a series of previous abstract steps is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Insignificant application) i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.)
Mere Instructions to Apply:
A method of producing a dental restoration (100), comprising the steps: generating (S101) a digital dental model (200) having a first spatial region (203-1) in which a first restoration material (201-1) is arranged and a second spatial region (203-2) in which a second restoration material (201-2) is arranged; rendering (S102) of the digital dental model (200) to generate an actual data set (DS-I) representing the optical properties comprising an absorption coefficient, a scattering coefficient and a refractive index of the digital dental model (200); determining (S103) a deviation (AEs,1) between a target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I) , wherein the deviation is calculated by summing up the differences in color values of pixels along comparison lines 207; altering (S104) the first spatial region (203 -1) and/or second spatial region (203-2) to obtain a smaller deviation (AEs,1) between the acquired target data set (DS-S) and the actual data set (DS-I) of a re-rendered digital dental model (200) wherein the altering is performed such that the first spatial region is an outer region of the dental model which is deformed inwardly and the second spatial region is an inner region of the dental model which is deformed outwardly;
As explained above, creating this dental model is a combination mental/mathematic process. Specifying that it is a digital dental model merely implements this mental/mathematic process on a generic computer, and therefore amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer. See (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i)) “A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer,” [Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); ]
In addition, the following are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
generating (S101) a digital dental model (200)… producing (S105) the dental restoration (100) based on the digital tooth model (200) … wherein the production process involves additive manufacturing techniques to fabricate the dental restoration… is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as evidenced by:
How Dental Dentures are Made ([Page 2 Par 5-6])
Applications of 3D Printing in Dentistry – A Review ([Abstract, Page 1671 Col 1 Par 4, Page 1672 Col 2 Par 3-4])
3D Printing and Digital Processing Techniques in Dentistry: A Review of Literature ([Abstract, Page 1 Col 1 Par 1-2])
An update on applications of 3D printing technologies used for processing polymers used in implant dentistry ([Abstract, Page 336 Col 2 Par 2])
Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “digital dental model” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the consideration of whether they constitute significantly more, and have been determined not to constitute such.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 5 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein a bounding surface is located in a center of the digital tooth model (200).”
This merely clarifies the structure of the drawn model, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental/mathematic process and mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer.
Claim 6 recites “The method according to claim 5, wherein the bounding surface (205) is tangential to the dental arch (211) at a corresponding tooth position.”
This merely clarifies the structure of the drawn model, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental/mathematic process and mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer.
Claim 9 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the first spatial region (203-1) and the second spatial region (203-2) are arranged in layers relative to each other.”
This merely clarifies the structure of the drawn model, and is therefore merely an extension of the mental/mathematic process and mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer.
Claim 10 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the first spatial region (203-1) and/or second spatial region (203-2) is altered until the deviation is below a predetermined value.”
This merely clarifies the criteria used to determine when the repeated alterations of the drawing during the mental/mathematic process of claim 1 should be concluded. Determining whether the deviation is below a predetermined/minimum value is a combination mental/mathematic process that consists of mathematically calculating the deviation by the method discloses in claim 1 (i.e. summing the differences in color values between the data sets), determining if the calculated deviation is below an arbitrarily chosen value, and based on this determination mentally judging whether or not more alterations should be made. This process could be repeated again and again until the goal deviation range is met.
Claim 11 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the first spatial region (203-1) and/or second spatial region (203-2) is altered until the deviation has reached a minimum value.”
This merely clarifies the criteria used to determine when the repeated alterations of the drawing during the mental/mathematic process of claim 1 should be concluded. Determining whether the deviation is below a predetermined/minimum value is a combination mental/mathematic process that consists of mathematically calculating the deviation by the method discloses in claim 1 (i.e. summing the differences in color values between the data sets), determining if the calculated deviation is below an arbitrarily chosen value, and based on this determination mentally judging whether or not more alterations should be made. If it is observed that further alterations are no longer improving the deviation (i.e. an “optimal” deviation level has been reached) a person could judge that no more alterations should be made.
Claim 12 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the target data set (DS-S) is obtained based on a natural tooth.”
Obtaining this target data set merely consists of gathering data about a patient’s tooth, such as by measuring the dimensions or color of the tooth. This element is therefore an example of mere data gathering.
Claim 13 recites “The method according to claim 12, wherein the target data set (DS-S) represents the optical properties and/or the geometry of the natural tooth.”
This merely clarifies what data is gathered when obtaining the target data, and is therefore merely an extension of the data gathering steps.
Claim 14 recites “A computer apparatus for producing a dental restoration (100), comprising a production apparatus adapted to perform the method of claim 1.”
This claim merely recites a generic computer on which to implement the judicial exception steps of claim 1, and therefore amounts to not more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Further, the use of such a “production apparatus” to produce a dental restoration through the use of additive manufacturing is a well-understood, routine, conventional technique. See below:
How Dental Dentures are Made ([Page 2 Par 5-6])
Applications of 3D Printing in Dentistry – A Review ([Abstract, Page 1671 Col 1 Par 4, Page 1672 Col 2 Par 3-4])
3D Printing and Digital Processing Techniques in Dentistry: A Review of Literature ([Abstract, Page 1 Col 1 Par 1-2])
An update on applications of 3D printing technologies used for processing polymers used in implant dentistry ([Abstract, Page 336 Col 2 Par 2])
Claim 15 recites “A computer apparatus for producing a dental restoration (100), comprising a production apparatus and a computer processor with at least one algorithm that is configured to perform the method of claim 1.”
This claim merely recites a generic computer on which to implement the judicial exception steps of claim 1, and therefore amounts to not more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Further, the use of such a “production apparatus” to produce a dental restoration through the use of additive manufacturing is a well-understood, routine, conventional technique. See below:
How Dental Dentures are Made ([Page 2 Par 5-6])
Applications of 3D Printing in Dentistry – A Review ([Abstract, Page 1671 Col 1 Par 4, Page 1672 Col 2 Par 3-4])
3D Printing and Digital Processing Techniques in Dentistry: A Review of Literature ([Abstract, Page 1 Col 1 Par 1-2])
An update on applications of 3D printing technologies used for processing polymers used in implant dentistry ([Abstract, Page 336 Col 2 Par 2])
Claim 16 recites “A computer program comprising instructions that cause a computer device for producing a dental restoration (100) comprising a production apparatus to perform the method steps of claim 1.”
This claim merely recites a generic computer on which to implement the judicial exception steps of claim 1, and therefore amounts to not more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Further, see the rejection of claim 16 below regarding the claim being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Further, the use of such a “production apparatus” to produce a dental restoration through the use of additive manufacturing is a well-understood, routine, conventional technique. See below:
How Dental Dentures are Made ([Page 2 Par 5-6])
Applications of 3D Printing in Dentistry – A Review ([Abstract, Page 1671 Col 1 Par 4, Page 1672 Col 2 Par 3-4])
3D Printing and Digital Processing Techniques in Dentistry: A Review of Literature ([Abstract, Page 1 Col 1 Par 1-2])
An update on applications of 3D printing technologies used for processing polymers used in implant dentistry ([Abstract, Page 336 Col 2 Par 2])
Claim 17 recites “A computer program product comprising program code which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, the machine-readable medium comprising computer instructions executable by a processor, which computer instructions cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1.”
This claim merely recites a generic computer on which to implement the judicial exception steps of claim 1, and therefore amounts to not more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Further, the use of a “production apparatus” to produce a dental restoration through the use of additive manufacturing is a well-understood, routine, conventional technique. See below:
How Dental Dentures are Made ([Page 2 Par 5-6])
Applications of 3D Printing in Dentistry – A Review ([Abstract, Page 1671 Col 1 Par 4, Page 1672 Col 2 Par 3-4])
3D Printing and Digital Processing Techniques in Dentistry: A Review of Literature ([Abstract, Page 1 Col 1 Par 1-2])
An update on applications of 3D printing technologies used for processing polymers used in implant dentistry ([Abstract, Page 336 Col 2 Par 2])
Further, regarding claim 16, the claim(s) are directed to a “computer program.” Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations are not directed to any of the statutory categories (MPEP 2106.03).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Mirabito whose telephone number is (703)756-1494. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187