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 .
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on May 19, 2025.
Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception.
Claims 1-7, 10, 16-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0365514 A1 Hasan et al [herein “Hasan”] in view of WO 2004/037112 A1 Lichkus, Andrew [herein “Lichkus”].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasan and Lichkus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0205828 A1 Laubersheimer, Jurgen et al. [herein “Laubersheimer”].
Claim 9, 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasan and Lichkus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0405459 A1 Hung, Tsung-Fu et al. [herein “Hung”].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasan, Lichkus, Hung as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 2011/0212419 A1 Schweiger, Josef Bergen [herein “Schweiger”].
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) filed May 19, 2022; April 24, 2024; and October 3, 2024 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Pg. 7 Ln 8-10, which states “Th central fissure can also be defined manually and/or an automatically defined or predefined cent central er fissure can be corrected manually” should be “The central fissure can also be defined manually and/or an automatically defined or predefined central fissure can be corrected manually.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-21 are objected to because of the following informality: recitations of elements with no previous recitations. For example, claim 1, “the following steps” in Ln. 3, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the following steps”. For the purpose of examination, “the following steps” will be interpreted as “steps of”. Claims 2-21 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its independent claim 1. Similarly, the following are objected under similar rationale:
Claim 1, “the tooth surface” in Ln. 5 and “the direction of the surface normal” in Ln. 11-12 should be “a tooth surface” and “a direction of a surface normal”, respectively. Claims 2-21 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its independent claim 1.
Claim 3 Ln. 2-3, “the direction of the associated surface normal” should be “a direction of an associated surface normal”. Claim 4 is also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claim 3.
Claim 5, “the case” in Ln. 6, “the central fissure” in Ln. 8, and “the amount” in Ln. 10 should be “a case”, “a central fissure”, and “an amount”, respectively. Claims 6-7 and 10 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claim 5.
Claim 8 “the first length” in Ln. 3 and “the transition surface” in Ln. 5 should be “a first length” and “the transition surface”, respectively. Alternatively, if claim 8 were to be written to be dependent on claim 7, then the objection would be overcome.
Claim 9 “the highest curve” in Ln. 8, “the first maximum displacement” in Ln. 8-9, “the position” in Ln. 11, “the at least partially displaced node points” in Ln. 16, “the maximum second displacement of the first boundary surface in the area” in Ln. 18-19, “the amount of the second displacement in the direction of the surface normal” in Ln. 22-23, and “the direction of the central fissure” in Ln. 24-25 should be “a highest curve”, “a first maximum displacement”, “a position”, “the displaced node points”, “a maximum second displacement of the first boundary surface in an area”, “an amount of a second displacement in a direction of a surface normal”, and “a direction of a central fissure”, respectively. Claims 11-15 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claim 9.
Claim 11, “the first and/or second incisal/occlusal surface contour” in Ln. 3-4, “the tangent on the incisal surface contour” in Ln. 4-5, and “the tooth axis” in Ln. 5 should be “the first incisal/occlusal first surface contour and/or the second surface contour”, “a tangent on the incisal/occlusal first surface contour”, and “a tooth axis”, respectively.
Claim 12, “wherein the beginning, end and course of the incisal surface contour” in Ln. 2-3 should be “wherein a beginning, end and course of the incisal surface contour”.
Claim 13, “the positions” in Ln. 2, “the incisal/occlusal surface contour” in Ln. 2-3 and in Ln. 4, and “the total length” in Ln. 4, should be “positions”, “the incisal/occlusal first surface contour”, and “a total length”, respectively.
Claim 14, “wherein the positions of the node points on the incisal/occlusal surface contour of posterior teeth are specified per cusp relative to the lengths of the cusp ridges between the mesial cusp start and the cusp tip or the cusp tip and the distal cusp end” should be “wherein positions of the node points on the incisal/occlusal first surface contour of posterior teeth are specified per cusp relative to lengths of cusp ridges between a mesial cusp start and a cusp tip or the cusp tip and a distal cusp end”.
Claim 15, “wherein the displacement of the node points on the incisal/occlusal surface contour in apical direction is in the range of -4.0 mm to +4.0 mm” should be “wherein a displacement of the node points on the incisal/occlusal surface first contour in apical direction is in a range of -4.0 mm to +4.0 mm”.
Claim 16, “the anatomically defined directional terms by geometric analysis of the tooth elements and their comparison to reference geometries” should be “anatomically defined directional terms by geometric analysis of tooth elements and the comparison of the tooth elements to reference geometries”.
Claim 17, “wherein the alignment of the tooth element is based on metadata which were generated when producing the outer contour, and/or wherein the tooth element is aligned manually” should be “wherein an alignment of the artificial tooth element is based on metadata which were generated when producing an outer contour, and/or wherein the artificial tooth element is aligned manually”.
Claim 18, “the tooth equator” in Ln. 3, and “the anatomically defined directional terms” in Ln. 4-5, “the tooth size”, “the preparation boundary” in Ln. 8, and “the distance” in Ln. 12 should be “a tooth equator”, “anatomically defined directional terms”, “a tooth size”, “a preparation boundary”, and “a distance”, respectively.
Claim 19, “the central fissure” in Ln. 2, and “the deepest curve on the occlusal surface” in Ln. 3-4 should be “a central fissure” and “a deepest curve on an occlusal surface”, respectively.
Claim 20, “the central fissure” in Ln. 3-4 should be “a central fissure”, respectively. Alternatively, if claim 8 were to be written to be dependent on claim 5, 9, or 19, then the objection would be overcome.
Claims 5-15 are objected to because of the following informalities
Claim 5 Ln. 11, “in the direction of the surface normal towards incisal/occlusal” should be “in the direction of the surface normal towards an incisal/occlusal direction”. Claims 6-7 and 10 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claim 5.
Claim 8 Ln. 1-4, “wherein the first boundary surface is projected by the first length towards incisal/occlusal for defining a second boundary curve” is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the first boundary surface”. For the purpose of examination, “the first boundary surface” will be interpreted as “the first boundary curve” as supported by the specification (see Pg 5 Para. 5 “A transition surface can also be defined such that the first boundary curve is projected incisally or occlusally by the first length, with a second boundary curve being defined by this projection.” Similarly, claim 9 Ln. 3, “the first boundary surface” has also be interpreted at “the first boundary curve”. Claims 11-15 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claim 9.
Claim 9, “the first surface contour” in Ln. 12 and “the incisal/occlusal surface contour” in Ln. 19 is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the first surface contour” and “the incisal/occlusal surface contour”. For the purpose of examination, both “the first surface contour” and “the incisal/occlusal surface contour” will interpreted as “incisal/occlusal first surface contour” from Claim 9 Ln. 7. Claims 11-15 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claim 9.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has found some of claims have been amended with and without markings but do not have the proper indication of the true status of the claims, e.g. “Currently Amended” instead of “Original” in claim 3. The applicant is respectfully reminded of the required format for making amendments in 37 CFR 1.121 and 1.125. See MPEP § 1893.01(a)(4), “The status of every claim in such listing must be indicated after its claim number by one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently Amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously Presented), (New), and (Not Entered)”, as well as MPEP § 714, “All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of ‘currently amended,’ and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of ‘currently amended,’ or ‘withdrawn’ if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as ‘withdrawn— currently amended.’” The examiner has interpreted the true status of the claim 3 as “Original” and all other claims appear to have the correct status.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “displacing said tooth surface inwards in the direction of the surface normal” in Ln. 11-12. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what “said tooth surface” in the phrase is referring to. The “said tooth surface” could be referring to either the “tooth surface” in Ln. 5 or the “incisally/occlusally located tooth surface” in Ln. 8-9. Therefore, it is unclear which is being referred to and the scope of the claim is unclear (See MPEP § 2173.05(h)). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that “said tooth surface” in this phrase to be “incisally/occlusally located tooth surface” in Ln. 8-9. The examiner recommends that applicant amend the claim language from “said tooth surface” to “the incisally/occlusally located tooth surface” or similar, as supported by the specification, when referring to the “incisally/occlusally located tooth surface”. Additionally. Claims 2-21, which are dependent on claim 1, are similarly rejected.
Claim 10 recites the term “about”, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (See MPEP § 2173.05(b)).
Claim 10 recites the phrase “the determined tooth surface”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what “the determined tooth surface” in the phrase is referring to. The “the determined” could be referring to either the “tooth surface” in claim 1 Ln. 5 or the “incisally/occlusally located tooth surface” in claim 1 Ln. 8-9. Therefore, it is unclear which is being referred to and the scope of the claim is unclear (See MPEP § 2173.05(h)). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that “the determined tooth surface” in this phrase to be “incisally/occlusally located tooth surface” in claim 1 Ln. 8-9. The examiner recommends that applicant amend the claim language from “the determined tooth surface” to “the incisally/occlusally located tooth surface” or similar, as supported by the specification, when referring to the “incisally/occlusally located tooth surface”.
Claim 16 recites the phrase “the determined tooth surface”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what “the determined tooth surface” in the phrase is referring to. The “the determined” could be referring to either the “tooth surface” in claim 1 Ln. 5 or the “incisally/occlusally located tooth surface” in claim 1 Ln. 8-9. Therefore, it is unclear which is being referred to and the scope of the claim is unclear (See MPEP § 2173.05(h)). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that “the determined tooth surface” in this phrase to be “incisally/occlusally located tooth surface” in claim 1 Ln. 8-9. The examiner recommends that applicant amend the claim language from “the determined tooth surface” to “the incisally/occlusally located tooth surface” or similar, as supported by the specification, when referring to the “incisally/occlusally located tooth surface”.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-21 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of:
“defining a first boundary curve on the tooth surface of the artificial tooth element”,
“determining, with respect to the first boundary curve, an incisally/occlusally located tooth surface”,
“displacing said tooth surface inwards in the direction of the surface normal by different amounts in order to produce the at least one boundary surface”, and
“wherein the different amounts of displacement are based on variable design parameters”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. The above limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a first boundary curve on a surface in the incisally/occlusal-direction on a model of a tooth as the disclosure cites that this process can be done manually, i.e., by a user or a dental technician (Pg. 3 Ln. 23-26, “It is also possible to define the first boundary curve at least partially manually. It is also possible to manually adjust a curve defined, in particular automatically, based on the tooth equator and/or the preparation boundary, for example”),
a person can mentally identify or draw with pen and paper that the first boundary curve on a surface in the incisally/occlusal-direction on a model of a tooth bounds a first surface area.
a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the first surface area inward in the normal direction by different amounts depending on a specification to create a first boundary surface, and
a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the first surface area inward in the normal direction by different amounts depending on variable design parameters and specification to create a first boundary surface.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions. The claim has been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the no additional elements.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, there are no additional element that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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, there are no additional elements in the claim that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claim 1 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 2, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the tooth surface is divided into a plurality of partial surfaces”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally identify or draw with pen and paper that the first boundary curve on a surface in the incisally/occlusal-direction on a model of a tooth bounds a first surface area that is divided into a number of partial surfaces.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 3, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the partial surfaces are displaced in the direction of the associated surface normal by different amounts in order to produce the at least one boundary surface”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the number of partial surfaces of the first surface area inward in the normal direction by different amounts depending on variable design parameters and specification to create a first boundary surface.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 4, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the partial surfaces are displaced in order to form an in particular reduced closed boundary surface (16)”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the number of partial surfaces of the first surface area inward in the normal direction by different amounts depending on variable design parameters and specification to create a first boundary surface that is reduced in size as compared to the first surface area and without any gaps.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 5, it recites additional limitations of:
“wherein the variable design parameters describe a maximum first displacement of the tooth surface and a first length for defining a transition surface”,
“wherein in the case of a first displacement there is no displacement yet for anterior and posterior teeth directly at the first boundary curve and for posterior teeth additionally at the central fissure”, and
“wherein the amount of the first displacement in the direction of the surface normal towards incisal/occlusal from the first boundary curve increases steadily until the maximum first displacement is reached, the first length being specified as a design parameter”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. The above limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the first surface area inward in the normal direction by different amounts depending on variable design parameters and specification that define a maximum amount of allowable movement of the first surface area and length for the transition surface between the first boundary curve and the displaces first surface area,
a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the first surface area inward in the normal direction by different amounts depending on variable design parameters and specification that define a maximum amount of allowable movement of the first surface area and length for the transition surface between the first boundary curve and the displaced first surface area with no movement yet at the first boundary curve or central fissure, and
a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the first surface area inward in the normal direction by different amounts until the maximum amount of allowable movement of the first surface area and the transition surface between the first boundary curve and the displaced first surface area, which depend on variable design parameters and specification, is reached.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 6, it recites additional limitations of “wherein the transition surface extends in incisal/occlusal direction”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the first surface area inward in the normal direction by different amounts until the maximum amount of allowable movement of the first surface area and the transition surface, which extends in an incisal/occlusal direction between the first boundary curve and the displaced first surface area, which depend on variable design parameters and specification, is reached.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 7, it recites additional limitations of “wherein the transition surface is formed adjacent to the first boundary curve”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the first surface area inward in the normal direction by different amounts until the maximum amount of allowable movement of the first surface area and the transition surface, which is in-between and adjacent to the first boundary curve and the displaced first surface area, which depend on variable design parameters and specification, is reached.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 8, it recites additional limitations of “wherein the first boundary surface is projected by the first length towards incisal/occlusal for defining a second boundary curve” and “wherein the transition surface is defined between the first and the second boundary curve”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a second boundary curve on a surface by projecting the first boundary surface by a first length, and a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a transition surface which is between the second boundary curve on a surface and the first boundary surface having a first length
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 9, it recites additional limitations of:
“wherein the variable design parameters describe a displacement of the first boundary surface, in which a third boundary curve is defined by projection of the first or second boundary curve by a second length”,
“an incisal/occlusal first surface contour is determined as the highest curve on the first boundary surface produced by the first maximum displacement”,
“on which node points are created, the position of which is defined on the first surface contour”,
“wherein a second surface contour is produced by at least partially displacing the node points in apical and/or incisal/occlusal direction and by connecting the at least partially displaced node points”,
“which defines the maximum second displacement of the first boundary surface in the area of the incisal/occlusal surface contour”, and
“wherein the amount of the second displacement in the direction of the surface normal decreases steadily by a third length for anterior and posterior teeth in apical direction and for posterior teeth also in the direction of the central fissure until at most the third boundary curve or the central fissure, respectively, is reached”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. The above limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a third boundary curve on a surface by projecting the first boundary surface by a second length based on variable design parameters and specification as the disclosure cites that this process can be done manually, i.e., by a user or dental technician (Pg. 6 Ln. 17-20, “Alternatively, the third boundary curve can be produced, independent of the first or second boundary curve, manually or based on other features of the tooth element, for example the equator or the preparation boundary”),
a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the first surface area inward in the normal direction by different amounts depending on variable design parameters and specification to create a first boundary surface in which the highest surface remains its natural contours to form an incisal/occlusal first surface contour as the disclosure cites that this process can be done manually, i.e., by a user or dental technician (Pg. 6 Ln. 24-25, “The highest curve can be determined automatically and corrected manually, if necessary”),
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper points on the incisal/occlusal first surface contour,
a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the points on the incisal/occlusal first surface contour in the incisal/occlusal direction and connect the moved points to form a second surface contour,
a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper incisal/occlusal first surface contour by a second maximum allowable amount, and
a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper incisal/occlusal first surface contour inward to decrease the displacement by a third length in the apical direction and in the central fissure direction until it reaches the third boundary curve or the central fissure.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 10, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the maximum first displacement of the determined tooth surface is about 0 to 4.0 mm and/or wherein the first length has an extension of 0.1 to 10.0 mm”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the first surface area inward in the normal direction by different amounts depending on variable design parameters and specification that define a maximum amount of allowable movement of the first surface area, such as 0 to 4.0 mm, and length for the transition surface between the first boundary curve and the displaces first surface area, such as 0.1 to 10.0 mm.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 11, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein for anterior teeth a boundary of the highest curve on the first and/or second incisal/occlusal surface contour is determined by an angle of the tangent on the incisal surface contour (28, 36) in relation to the tooth axis, the angle being from 0° to 90°”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can create move or draw with pen and paper a boundary to form the highest surface on the first surface area when angle created between tangent line to the first incisal/occlusal surface contour from the tooth axis to between 0 and 90 degrees. Further the disclosure cites that this process can be done manually, i.e., by a user or dental technician (Pg. 7 Ln. 26-27, “In particular, it is also possible to manually define or adjust the boundary, i.e. the beginning and the end, as well as the course of the incisal surface contour.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 12, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the beginning, end and course of the incisal surface contour is manually defined or adjusted”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person create move or draw with pen and paper a boundary of the first incisal/occlusal surface contour from the tooth axis to adjust the contour to a desired shape. Further the disclosure cites that this process can be done manually, i.e., by a user or dental technician (Pg. 7 Ln. 26-27, “In particular, it is also possible to manually define or adjust the boundary, i.e. the beginning and the end, as well as the course of the incisal surface contour.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 13, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the positions of the node points on the incisal surface contour of anterior teeth are specified relative to the total length of the incisal surface contour”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper points on the incisal/occlusal first surface contour within the boundary length of the incisal/occlusal first surface contour .
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 14, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the positions of the node points on the incisal/occlusal surface contour of posterior teeth are specified per cusp relative to the lengths of the cusp ridges between the mesial cusp start and the cusp tip or the cusp tip and the distal cusp end, respectively”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper points on the incisal/occlusal first surface contour within the boundary length of the incisal/occlusal first surface contour, such as between the mesial cusp start and the cusp tip or between the cusp tip and the distal cusp end .
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 15, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the displacement of the node points on the incisal/occlusal surface contour in apical direction is in the range of -4.0 mm to +4.0 mm”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally move or draw with pen and paper the points on the incisal/occlusal first surface contour in the apical direction in the range of -4.0 mm to +4.0 mm and connect the moved points to form a second surface contour.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 16, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the tooth element is aligned with respect to the anatomically defined directional terms by geometric analysis of the tooth elements and their comparison to reference geometries”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the alignment and direction of the tooth model by analyzing the geometry of the model such as rotating the model in proper orientation based on the highest occlusal/incisal points. Further the disclosure cites that this process can be done manually, e.g., by a user or dental technician (Pg. 7 Ln. 26-27, “The tooth element can be aligned manually”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 17, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the alignment of the tooth element is based on metadata which were generated when producing the outer contour, and/or wherein the tooth element is aligned manually”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the alignment and direction of the tooth model by analyzing the geometry of the model such as rotating the model in proper orientation based on the highest occlusal/incisal points. Further the disclosure cites that this process can be done manually, e.g., by a user or dental technician (Pg. 7 Ln. 26-27, “The tooth element can be aligned manually”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 18, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the first boundary curve based on detecting the tooth equator as a curve on which at least four node points are described according to the anatomically defined directional terms, which node points are displaced in apical or incisal/occlusal direction by distances defined relative to the tooth size on the tooth surface, and/or wherein the first boundary curve is based on detecting the preparation boundary as a curve on which at least four node points are described according to the anatomically defined directional terms, which node points are displaced in apical or incisal/occlusal direction by distances defined relative to the tooth size or with regard to the distance to the preparation boundary on the tooth surface”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can create or draw with pen and paper a first boundary curve on a surface that is above the tooth equation and identify the four points on the tooth equation to be moved in the incisal/occlusal direction by distances defined relative to the tooth size on the tooth surface, and a person can create or draw with pen and paper a first boundary curve on a surface that is below the preparation boundary and identify the four points on the preparation boundary to be moved in the apical direction.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 19, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the central fissure is determined automatically for posterior teeth by detecting the deepest curve on the occlusal surface leading from mesial to distal”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally identify with pen and paper the deepest curve on the on the occlusal surface the mesial end to the distal end to be the central fissure.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 20, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the first and/or second and/or third boundary curve is manually defined or adjusted, and/or wherein the central fissure for posterior teeth is manually defined or adjusted”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a first boundary curve on a surface in the incisally/occlusal-direction on a model of a tooth, a second boundary curve on a surface by projecting the first boundary surface by a first length, and a third boundary curve on a surface by projecting the first boundary surface by a second length based on variable design parameters and specification. Further the disclosure cites that these processes can be done manually, e.g., by a user or dental technician (Pg. 3 Ln. 23-26, “It is also possible to define the first boundary curve at least partially manually. It is also possible to manually adjust a curve defined, in particular automatically, based on the tooth equator and/or the preparation boundary, for example” and Pg. 6 Ln. 17-20, “Alternatively, the third boundary curve can be produced, independent of the first or second boundary curve, manually or based on other features of the tooth element, for example the equator or the preparation boundary”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 21, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein any layers can be adjusted manually by virtual modelling tools” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 21 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-21 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-21 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the